[quote from="DirkGently »" url="/forums/the-game/commander-edh/808982-talk-it-is-conceading-fair-play-to-you?comment=77"]So people will be tactical scooping as it gives them a slight advantage and being the "best at magic means leveraging EVERY tool", but a meta with tactical scooping will not really encourage people to play combos that don't care if someone tactically scoops even if it gives them an advantage?
I love infinite combos and competitive extra turns decks, so I am actually ok with tactical scooping if it is clear beforehand as I can just play my favourite type of decks. I guess my main issue with tactical scooping is people don't normally declare whether that is allowed or not when playing with new people (you could certainly argue they should and I'd agree, but would you agree it isn't common to do so?). Couple this with the fact I think it is fair to say a majority do not support tactical scooping and this generates king making games and animosity between players when someone out of the blue threatens tactical scooping when it isn't expected. It almost feels like the rules of the game are changing in that instance and nullifies any 'win' (even though I agree with others that a win is a win). What are you thoughts on that?
Additional thoughts:
When playing competitively I normally automatically assume the 'worst' and that someone will play as cutthroat as possible. I've been in competitive and less competitive games before and sometimes I point out tactical scooping potentials in game, but so far none of the 50+ people I've ever played commander with came out in favour of tactical scooping to deny combat triggers (one other person and myself would be ok with it if it was clear beforehand, but we were both the most cutthroat players in any of the groups I've played in).
I understand the purpose of allowing tactical scooping. That being that players own their cards and need to be able to take them and leave whenever they want, but that's why it seems tactical scooping is an accident of the rules. Perhaps a slightly messier rule that could support the majority who are against tactical scooping could be that scooping at anytime is allowed, but if someone insta-scoops players are allowed to move back a phase of the game (or move back to declare attackers step if insta-scooping occurs at any point during combat). It does seem allowing tactical scooping was the easiest way to have the rules though when making rules for the majority as a whole.
deckbuilding and gameplay are two different beasts. "Build casually, play competitively" as the edh mantra goes. Personally, I strive for the best play I can reasonably achieve. I don't usually play powerful decks, though.
Also "should" and "will" are different things too. People should be non-interactive combo decks if they want to maximize wins, speed scooping or no, but they generally don't (for which I'm grateful). And I don't think speed scooping really has enough impact to push that needle very far.
I generally agree with the rest of what you've said. I don't think the origin of the rules being simplicity/convenience is good reason not to "exploit" them when trying to play well, though - to go back to the astral slide example, it seems most likely to me that the whole "object forgets its prior state when it changes zones" rule was invented for simplicity's sake, so you don't have to track a bunch of stuff in other zones. Which then resulted in the somewhat strange "exploit" around morph. But hey, if those are the rules, then it's fair game. If you don't like those rules being exploited, then bust out the house rules.
</blockquote>
The morph scenario is an INGAME move, the "dirty scoop" (I refuse to called it tactical) is not an ingame move, is cheap, low and spitefull
Or maybe I am wrong and I can use "tactical threteaning" in my next games, so the next time someone atacks me, I will just blink my eyes to the atacker and say "are you sure" and then I will flex my arms towards him closing my fist, and because I am a 104kg bodybuilder maybe they will not atack me, so cool, or because I am the one hosting the games I will say "if you attack em tehn I wont invite you anymore to this playgroup", both strategies are not ingame but is good politics right?
Must be fun to be your own rules manager, deciding what is, and what isn't, the "intended" functionality of the rules. And making people "pay" for their transgressions. o_O
I understand why you don't see the dirty move a scoop is in the situations we are mentioning, its ok.
But by your own logic, If you are free to screw our games, then I am free to just not play with you anymore or even better, every time I play with you again then I will get my Markov battle cruiser and delete you by turn 3 every single time to the point you will concede as you want at instant speed while I am shuffling or you will behave like a player who cares about everyone's game, your choice everytime
My two cents: Coming from a judge/tournament Magic background, it goes against most of my instincts to insist on anything other than being able to concede at any time for any reason. I understand that there are strategic and political implications to concession in multiplayer games, but those are things that the playgroup can work out among themselves.
In a 1v1 tournament or not environment, conceding at instant speed does not affect anyone else, you concede, I win, so in a tournament I wont care if you concede against me at any speed, If I am attacking you with a 202/20 lifelik and you concede before damage I wont have the life gain, but I will won anyway so, who cares?
But in EDH, the same situation is different, because if you concede before damage you are denying me the life gain and I am still have to play against the other two in the table, so you are messing my game by not playing and I think this is a wrong use of the rules, an exploit to the rules.
In any case, If I see a player doing this, first I will try to convince him to behave if it works, great, if don't, then that is the last time I play with that guy if he is a PUG and if he is a friend, he will pay for that decision
You wanna use feelings (your feelings to be precise) to argue against facts and logic. You also want to use peer pressure to bully people into doing what you want and finally you want to claim moral high ground.
You can dress it up by calling it "tactical," but scooping to deny value is scummy, and no amount of flowery language will ever convince me that it's a noble act. If a player casts a game-winning Insurrection and you can't stop it in-game, then that player earned the win. Shuffle up and start a new game. Like adults.
-If you've agreed that speed-scooping is off-limits, then yes, they earned the win. But if it's not, then they didn't. The funny thing about "earned" wins is that, if they're actually earned...they're just wins.
In that particular case, were I the player with a big, insurrection-able board, then I'd try to make a deal with the insurrection player not to eliminate me in exchange for not ruining their insurrection by scooping. And if I were the insurrection player, I'd be quick to offer/accept such a deal, since I could still presumably put myself in a very good position afterwards. Maybe the insurrection-able player would also have to agree not to attack on the next turn...you get the idea. It's all just more levels of politics.
If you don't like those levels, then house rule it.
I think threads like this are great arguments for building less interactive decks. Who wants a big Commander-like win by stealing all the creatures on the board and turning them back on their owners when they'll just invalidate you anyway. Build early turn combo decks so that tactical scoopers can only speed up your inevitability. I suppose I'm mostly just amazed that this topic even has two sides.
People way overrate the risk of speed-scooping. Not only do very few people do it, but most strats aren't particularly affected by it. Insurrection, perhaps, although as mentioned above it can usually be politicked through if everyone is playing logically. Theft decks in general (such as Geth, which I've played a fair amount of) are pretty vulnerable to people leaving the game, whether from being eliminated, scooping out of spite, or just needing to catch the bus. It's an important part of the strat to be able to keep your hosts alive while you feed from them - if you aren't putting pressure on them until you've eliminated the other players, they're less likely to want to scoop, or be eliminated by the other players.
But these are corner cases, most decks are barely affected by speed-scooping, if at all. And combo is much stronger than what most people are doing, with or without speed-scooping on the table. Saying that people will play fast combo if speed-scooping is allowed is ridiculous - if people wanted to maximize wins during deck construction they'd all be playing fast combo decks regardless. But if they did have to worry about speed-scooping, it might make them think a little harder about politics.
The thing that annoys me most about this topic really, though, is how much people want to make it a MORAL issue. "speed-scoopers are babies, grow up, play like an ADULT, he EARNED that win with the SWEAT OF HIS 5RRR BROW". Do I think speed-scooping is a little lame, and a lot of people do it pointlessly out of spite? Sure, but it's a legal move, and used correctly it can actually be the CORRECT move. And I think anyone who plays magic, even if they don't necessarily like it, has to give a certain amount of respect to the correct play, and not try to turn a move in a game into a reflection of someone's character.
And seriously, I hate this "earned win" thing. If it was earned, it would be a win. You show me where in the comp rules it says anything about earning a win and I'll eat my tabernacle (ok, not really, but also I just ctrl+Fed the comp rules for "earn", just in case )
Ok, I will try to explain myself better this time (my natal tongue is not English as you may guess due my absolute failure to explain me so far)
Scenario #1
Player 1 plays Insurrection and takes all creatures, you have a huge board but 2 life, before damage you tap a mountain and lightning bolt yourself to deny the win to player 1.
This scenario is fine, is good and fair game, you used a in game play to deny your opponent the victory, it very well could be a teferi's protection, a counterspell or even a fog
Scenario #2
Player 1 plays Insurrection and takes all creatures, you have a huge board but 2 life, before damage you concede denying the victory because your creatures are not longer in the game
This is wrong, because you are using a non-game play, conceding is not a game move and in multiplayer it should not be allowed
In a 1v1 scenario, you can concede because the only player affected is you, you are not changing the outcome of the game by conceding in a 1v1 situation. so if you get salted because you are getting bet up in a 1v1 then conceding or not have zero impact in the result
But when you concede in a multiplayer game, then you are affecting other players and you are affecting the game by NOT PLAYING instead of affecting the game playing.
So conceding in the Insurrection situation scenario is cheap, low, wrong, childish, against the very basics concepts of fair play and sportsmanship.
If you can win by playing then great, if you can deny other peoples win while playing GREAT, but using 'tactical scoop' , as you like to call this dirty action (because it is an action just as flipping the table , not a play) only shows salt, trolling I have seen only in the very low skilled players and/or immature ones (no offense for anyone, it is just anecdotal evidence)
I believe whatever makes the game enjoyable for the greatest number of people is the correct play.
The biggest example to this kind of issue has come up with Insurrection. My big, dumb battlecruiser deck has the best, spookiest board, and can kill the table if blockers are cleared with the mass mind control.
I respond by conceding. One player is salty, I’ve definitely lost (though helped play kingmaker), while two more players are still in the game- net political positive for the next game, and the current game continues with 2/3rd content.
Usually, the insurrection player is then allowed the classic take backsies and can use their turn and mana differently, essentially killing target player for nothing! Lots of ways around it without taking away the agency of concession at whatever speed you want.
And this kind of behavior is why conceding at instant speed should not be allowed, you are scooping to deny their legitimate wincon, is insurrection any worst than Triumph of the horde or similars.
Again, if you do that, if you concede to an insurrection you lack sportsmanship to say the least, and why those people will want to play with you again?
I mean, you can read, the answer to your question is in what you quoted: politics. My playgroups love me because I focus entirely on what provides the most enjoyable experience for the greatest number of players- full stop. If that means conceding so my overextending into an Insurrection doesn't end the game for half the table, it's entirely welcomed.
The problem with your arguments, concepts of sportsmanship itself aside, is that you're coming at it exclusively from the angle of the salty player. You aren't the only player in the game, and you definitely aren't the only voice or opinion that matters at any table. The delineation between "spite-scoop" and "tactical scoop" is telling- you're spitting one player, but being tactical to the benefit of the rest; it's all in the perspective. If the table at large disagrees with the scoop, I.E. the majority isn't happy, then I wouldn't do it. But, in every game where I've offered up my head on the block so the game can continue (which, mind you, isn't a huge sample size, but still relevant), the majority loved it and my reputation for kingly politicking persists.
Triumph of the Hordes is a poor example, if only because you'll find that poison is a contested win condition for roughly half the people I play with. To the point, however, any win condition that relies on your opponents is one that has to be weighed- while the haymakers of Insurrection, Bribery, and friends are the most relevant, there are countless other ways that you can get screwed over by relying on theft effects- whether a player is knocked out or concedes. I'm in the camp that a win-condition that relies on your opponents is not, in fact, "legitimate," but more because of the feels-bad nature of it, rather than any kind of fear of spite plays (oh curse my bleeding "fun first" philosophy).
What I mean is, if you want to counterspell insurrection then play some Counterspell or Homeward path, or even a fog can screw that move by actually playing magic but you are using a concesion just to screw a player by NOT PLAYING, because if you counter the spell then you are playing magic, ok, if you are at 1 life and tap a painland to deny the insureccion is also OK you are actually playing magic and denying the efcect, but "quit playing" to deny an effect is not playing, so I think is cheap, wrong and unaceptable
But if your playgroup thinks you are a hero for that and they cheer you that kind of playstyle is OK, every playgroup has their own rules spoken or not
I believe whatever makes the game enjoyable for the greatest number of people is the correct play.
The biggest example to this kind of issue has come up with Insurrection. My big, dumb battlecruiser deck has the best, spookiest board, and can kill the table if blockers are cleared with the mass mind control.
I respond by conceding. One player is salty, I’ve definitely lost (though helped play kingmaker), while two more players are still in the game- net political positive for the next game, and the current game continues with 2/3rd content.
Usually, the insurrection player is then allowed the classic take backsies and can use their turn and mana differently, essentially killing target player for nothing! Lots of ways around it without taking away the agency of concession at whatever speed you want.
And this kind of behavior is why conceding at instant speed should not be allowed, you are scooping to deny their legitimate wincon, is insurrection any worst than Triumph of the horde or similars.
Again, if you do that, if you concede to an insurrection you lack sportsmanship to say the least, and why those people will want to play with you again?
In both cases the strategic value of the threat is that they might decide not to do the thing you don't want them to do. If they need the lifelink or they'll die on the crack back, for example, they could very well attack elsewhere, or at least non-lethally, to ensure the life gain.
There's no strategic value in actually scooping, except to ensure people take you seriously in the future. And if they don't change course, then ideally you've lost nothing since you were dead anyway (or basically so, although people frequently suck at knowing when that is).
Scooping without threatening to is pointless since there's no opportunity for them to change course.
Threatening to scoop to trivial stuff is dumb since you have so much to lose if they don't change course.
.
I have to disagree, there is not a strategic value of that threat, because if you are at 6 life and I am atacking with a 6/6 lifelinker and you threat to concede to deny me the life gain, then one or more of this things will happend.
1. I will attack you no matter what, you will die and if you concede I will add up those 6 life anyway
2. I will never ever play again with you because you are just saying 'if things are nor my way, I am out' so for me, be out forever.
you say that 'crying' and threatening to concede is a strategy? really??? for me is the same strategic value my kids have when they cry and threat for a toy, I will denied them always and will be punished for that behavior.
After reading your primer I thought better of you, how disappointing
You are advocating here that you actually cheat. I think "actually cheating" -sportmanship is little worse than "playing the game according to the rules" -sportmanship.
People who cheat don't deserve to play this game.
Sorry my natal tongue is not english and I didn't understood exactly what you are saying, can you rephrase this sentence?
I said, that if you attack me with a 6/6 lifelinker and I concede before damage just to prevent you from gaining life, it is bordeline cheating and in my playgroup even this is not allowed, is poor sportmanship, I have never sufer that kind of bad behavior even in a PUG game on my LGS but I can assure you that if I am ever seated with a player that actually do this kind of things, that would be the last time I play in the same table
Threatening to scoop is a viable tactical option and removing it makes the game worse.
Threatening to scoop makes the game miserable for other people, why would you do that in a table with friends? because doing it in a table of random people in your LGS the only thing that willa complish is that they killed you first and dont get invited anymore (at last if I am in that table)
I could never support conceding only at sorcery speed as a rule, because I auto-concede to resolving cards like Thieve's Auction. Sure, I could just wait and concede on my turn, but that prevents the issue of me not wanting my cards mixed up with other players cards like that, due to some previous bad experiences (losing some very expensive cards to PuG players). As long as relevant triggers would otherwise go off (example, attacking someone with effects that give card draw or life gain on damage), concede whenever. It's one less person to worry about for the win.
I can understand conceading in response to Thieves' Auction (I wouldn't do it but I understand why), but conceading at instant speed to deny the life gain or card draw of an attacker seems unaceptable to me.
If player 1 is atacking player 2, and player 1 concedes so player 2 dont get the card draw, life gain or even a wincon I will talk to player 3 to count as if the concesion was invalid, so even if the player 2 isnt there anymore I will ask player 3 to agree to grant the atacker all the benefits he would have if the player 2 hasn't scooped.
For me, that kind of scooping is abusing a 'game mechanic' in a very poor sportamnship way and is borderline cheating
Other players have no business forcing you to sit at a table and play a game with them for a second longer than you want to.
Nobody is talking about "forcing" anyone to anything. I am talking about good behaviour, sportsmanship, not ruining the game for your friends (I am not talking about MOL).
[quote from="Alexev »" url="/forums/the-game/commander-edh/808982-talk-it-is-conceading-fair-play-to-you?comment=3"][quote from="Dunharrow »" url="/forums/the-game/commander-edh/808982-talk-it-is-conceading-fair-play-to-you?comment=2"]So, I once played a 4 player game and when we were down to me and the last opponent, I put gift of immortality on Kami of False Hope
If you regularly play with this person then you should discuss creative solutions to Bribery and other steal effects (for example, only the owner of the deck manipulates his cards, and you tell him what to do with the creature). Or, you play a different deck/swap out Bribery.
If you play with the same people frequently, you can and should make house rules, and if that person does not want others touching their cards, then you can either change or make them change.
The bribery example was a just that, an example, the player I am talking abut will conceade if he thinks he is being the focus of atacks, or if he thinks we should attack someone else, etc.
I agree that sometimes people concede early and it is frustrating. When someone concedes in response to Bribery, it is unsportsmanlike. But they should still be allowed to do it. In the end, it is a game for fun, and if someone doesn't like having their personal possessions handled by other people, they can concede.
If we accept this, then what is the right answer? never cast Bribery on that player because he will scoop? or casting it knowing it will be player removal instead of the thing it should do?
So, I once played a 4 player game and when we were down to me and the last opponent, I put gift of immortality on Kami of False Hope. My opponent looked at this and realized that his monogreen deck didn't have a way to beat this. So he conceded.
This is different, If I am playing a monogreen and you cast Iona, shield of emeria for green and I have not scourge from existence in my deck or nevyral disk, then it is ok to say that and concede if we are the last one , but trust me, If the game is not 1v1 and you cast Iona for my mono color I will be still in the game and wont conceade
I want to talk about the 'moral' aspects of conceding and if it is or is not a good practice
I think conceding is a 'bad player's' choice (bad not for skill reasons) and these are my thoughts abut it.
Sometimes in some games we will want it to end because it is looking bad for us, one or more opponents just focuses on us, or we are mana screw, or we misplayed a lot or any other reason that is taking the fun away from us.
I know the feeling, I have been there a lot of times and I will be there a lot more, but no matter hw bad is the game for me, no matter how much I want to concede I don't do it for these reasons
1. It is a game we play with friends, so, we should have our focus on having fun altogether, if I am the victim of a focus by two players and I rage-quit the game, I will leave the table, but the bad feeling will stay at the table, so why ruining the game for the other players?
2. The game is not over for us until our life total get's 0, so we can try to overcome the problems, maybe winning sometimes will be very out of our reach in some games, but we can try, we can learn, we can take the opportunity to study how our deck behaves against such games and how to improve it.
3, Maybe one or 2 players are focusing on us to 'have revenge' for past games, and that is ok too, I remember a session were I won 2 games in a row, one player was very salty because I killed him first at 1st game, then he 'side boarded' tons of counter spells with the sole focus of not letting me play and I won the 2nd game too and other player got salted, so when we got to the 3rd game, I knew they will be focusing me, I got mana screw, I had 5 lands at turn 7 and one of my opponents played Terastodon aiming for 3 of my 5 lands, so it was pretty much game over for me, but I didn't concede, I play to the end working hard to overcome the situation, to survive long enough and try to win, I din't won, I was killed first, they had the blood they wanted and we all had fun, no bad feeling at my side of the table.
So, if the players are focusing you because you won too many games, or you commander is scary or any other reason, just suck it up
4. Some times some one will cast Bribery on us, nobody want's our opponents having our stuff, but conceding to an effect like this, or a annihilator X or any other bad stuff just ruins the game for your friends.
What is the deal then? The opponents can't target us bribery or similar effects because 'in response' we will concede and it will be a wasted attack or a 'counterspell like'?. For me this kind of behavior show bad sportsmanship to say the least.
5. Let people do their magic, if you are in a 1v1 against the last player, and he will attack us for lethal, let him do it, it wont take more than 30 seconds, do you feel better saying 'concede' than 'lose'? is that it?
So many times I saw that a player gets his engine going, he is getting the upper hand against the last one, the last player knows the game is not in his favor, so he concedes, well that is also bad sportsmanship, because you may find a way to overcome it, and even if you don't, the winning player build his or her deck to do some magic and it is doing it, by conceding 2 or 3 turns earlier we are taking away his fun
The morph scenario is an INGAME move, the "dirty scoop" (I refuse to called it tactical) is not an ingame move, is cheap, low and spitefull
Or maybe I am wrong and I can use "tactical threteaning" in my next games, so the next time someone atacks me, I will just blink my eyes to the atacker and say "are you sure" and then I will flex my arms towards him closing my fist, and because I am a 104kg bodybuilder maybe they will not atack me, so cool, or because I am the one hosting the games I will say "if you attack em tehn I wont invite you anymore to this playgroup", both strategies are not ingame but is good politics right?
By the way, This is a good video about this topic, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsAxHq5IM5M
EDH: RWB Edgar Markov The current updated decklist is here
EDH: WUB Oloro, Ageless ascetic The current updated decklist is here
EDH: UWG Phelddagrif, The current updated decklist is here
EDH: WUB Yennett, Cryptic Sovereign The current updated decklist is here
EDH: WUB Alela, Artful provocateur The current updated decklist is here
EDH: GB Hapatra, vizier of poisons The current updated decklist is here
I understand why you don't see the dirty move a scoop is in the situations we are mentioning, its ok.
But by your own logic, If you are free to screw our games, then I am free to just not play with you anymore or even better, every time I play with you again then I will get my Markov battle cruiser and delete you by turn 3 every single time to the point you will concede as you want at instant speed while I am shuffling or you will behave like a player who cares about everyone's game, your choice everytime
EDH: RWB Edgar Markov The current updated decklist is here
EDH: WUB Oloro, Ageless ascetic The current updated decklist is here
EDH: UWG Phelddagrif, The current updated decklist is here
EDH: WUB Yennett, Cryptic Sovereign The current updated decklist is here
EDH: WUB Alela, Artful provocateur The current updated decklist is here
EDH: GB Hapatra, vizier of poisons The current updated decklist is here
In a 1v1 tournament or not environment, conceding at instant speed does not affect anyone else, you concede, I win, so in a tournament I wont care if you concede against me at any speed, If I am attacking you with a 202/20 lifelik and you concede before damage I wont have the life gain, but I will won anyway so, who cares?
But in EDH, the same situation is different, because if you concede before damage you are denying me the life gain and I am still have to play against the other two in the table, so you are messing my game by not playing and I think this is a wrong use of the rules, an exploit to the rules.
In any case, If I see a player doing this, first I will try to convince him to behave if it works, great, if don't, then that is the last time I play with that guy if he is a PUG and if he is a friend, he will pay for that decision
EDH: RWB Edgar Markov The current updated decklist is here
EDH: WUB Oloro, Ageless ascetic The current updated decklist is here
EDH: UWG Phelddagrif, The current updated decklist is here
EDH: WUB Yennett, Cryptic Sovereign The current updated decklist is here
EDH: WUB Alela, Artful provocateur The current updated decklist is here
EDH: GB Hapatra, vizier of poisons The current updated decklist is here
Who is this answer for?
EDH: RWB Edgar Markov The current updated decklist is here
EDH: WUB Oloro, Ageless ascetic The current updated decklist is here
EDH: UWG Phelddagrif, The current updated decklist is here
EDH: WUB Yennett, Cryptic Sovereign The current updated decklist is here
EDH: WUB Alela, Artful provocateur The current updated decklist is here
EDH: GB Hapatra, vizier of poisons The current updated decklist is here
Ok, I will try to explain myself better this time (my natal tongue is not English as you may guess due my absolute failure to explain me so far)
Scenario #1
Player 1 plays Insurrection and takes all creatures, you have a huge board but 2 life, before damage you tap a mountain and lightning bolt yourself to deny the win to player 1.
This scenario is fine, is good and fair game, you used a in game play to deny your opponent the victory, it very well could be a teferi's protection, a counterspell or even a fog
Scenario #2
Player 1 plays Insurrection and takes all creatures, you have a huge board but 2 life, before damage you concede denying the victory because your creatures are not longer in the game
This is wrong, because you are using a non-game play, conceding is not a game move and in multiplayer it should not be allowed
In a 1v1 scenario, you can concede because the only player affected is you, you are not changing the outcome of the game by conceding in a 1v1 situation. so if you get salted because you are getting bet up in a 1v1 then conceding or not have zero impact in the result
But when you concede in a multiplayer game, then you are affecting other players and you are affecting the game by NOT PLAYING instead of affecting the game playing.
So conceding in the Insurrection situation scenario is cheap, low, wrong, childish, against the very basics concepts of fair play and sportsmanship.
If you can win by playing then great, if you can deny other peoples win while playing GREAT, but using 'tactical scoop' , as you like to call this dirty action (because it is an action just as flipping the table , not a play) only shows salt, trolling I have seen only in the very low skilled players and/or immature ones (no offense for anyone, it is just anecdotal evidence)
This answers goes also to Fenrir
EDH: RWB Edgar Markov The current updated decklist is here
EDH: WUB Oloro, Ageless ascetic The current updated decklist is here
EDH: UWG Phelddagrif, The current updated decklist is here
EDH: WUB Yennett, Cryptic Sovereign The current updated decklist is here
EDH: WUB Alela, Artful provocateur The current updated decklist is here
EDH: GB Hapatra, vizier of poisons The current updated decklist is here
What I mean is, if you want to counterspell insurrection then play some Counterspell or Homeward path, or even a fog can screw that move by actually playing magic but you are using a concesion just to screw a player by NOT PLAYING, because if you counter the spell then you are playing magic, ok, if you are at 1 life and tap a painland to deny the insureccion is also OK you are actually playing magic and denying the efcect, but "quit playing" to deny an effect is not playing, so I think is cheap, wrong and unaceptable
But if your playgroup thinks you are a hero for that and they cheer you that kind of playstyle is OK, every playgroup has their own rules spoken or not
EDH: RWB Edgar Markov The current updated decklist is here
EDH: WUB Oloro, Ageless ascetic The current updated decklist is here
EDH: UWG Phelddagrif, The current updated decklist is here
EDH: WUB Yennett, Cryptic Sovereign The current updated decklist is here
EDH: WUB Alela, Artful provocateur The current updated decklist is here
EDH: GB Hapatra, vizier of poisons The current updated decklist is here
And this kind of behavior is why conceding at instant speed should not be allowed, you are scooping to deny their legitimate wincon, is insurrection any worst than Triumph of the horde or similars.
Again, if you do that, if you concede to an insurrection you lack sportsmanship to say the least, and why those people will want to play with you again?
EDH: RWB Edgar Markov The current updated decklist is here
EDH: WUB Oloro, Ageless ascetic The current updated decklist is here
EDH: UWG Phelddagrif, The current updated decklist is here
EDH: WUB Yennett, Cryptic Sovereign The current updated decklist is here
EDH: WUB Alela, Artful provocateur The current updated decklist is here
EDH: GB Hapatra, vizier of poisons The current updated decklist is here
I have to disagree, there is not a strategic value of that threat, because if you are at 6 life and I am atacking with a 6/6 lifelinker and you threat to concede to deny me the life gain, then one or more of this things will happend.
1. I will attack you no matter what, you will die and if you concede I will add up those 6 life anyway
2. I will never ever play again with you because you are just saying 'if things are nor my way, I am out' so for me, be out forever.
you say that 'crying' and threatening to concede is a strategy? really??? for me is the same strategic value my kids have when they cry and threat for a toy, I will denied them always and will be punished for that behavior.
After reading your primer I thought better of you, how disappointing
EDH: RWB Edgar Markov The current updated decklist is here
EDH: WUB Oloro, Ageless ascetic The current updated decklist is here
EDH: UWG Phelddagrif, The current updated decklist is here
EDH: WUB Yennett, Cryptic Sovereign The current updated decklist is here
EDH: WUB Alela, Artful provocateur The current updated decklist is here
EDH: GB Hapatra, vizier of poisons The current updated decklist is here
Sorry my natal tongue is not english and I didn't understood exactly what you are saying, can you rephrase this sentence?
I said, that if you attack me with a 6/6 lifelinker and I concede before damage just to prevent you from gaining life, it is bordeline cheating and in my playgroup even this is not allowed, is poor sportmanship, I have never sufer that kind of bad behavior even in a PUG game on my LGS but I can assure you that if I am ever seated with a player that actually do this kind of things, that would be the last time I play in the same table
EDH: RWB Edgar Markov The current updated decklist is here
EDH: WUB Oloro, Ageless ascetic The current updated decklist is here
EDH: UWG Phelddagrif, The current updated decklist is here
EDH: WUB Yennett, Cryptic Sovereign The current updated decklist is here
EDH: WUB Alela, Artful provocateur The current updated decklist is here
EDH: GB Hapatra, vizier of poisons The current updated decklist is here
The topic is about when you concede not being the last one, is about concesions when there are 2 or more opponents at the table.
Scooping to bribery is dumb, so is scooping because you think someone is focusing you (whetever is true or not)
EDH: RWB Edgar Markov The current updated decklist is here
EDH: WUB Oloro, Ageless ascetic The current updated decklist is here
EDH: UWG Phelddagrif, The current updated decklist is here
EDH: WUB Yennett, Cryptic Sovereign The current updated decklist is here
EDH: WUB Alela, Artful provocateur The current updated decklist is here
EDH: GB Hapatra, vizier of poisons The current updated decklist is here
Threatening to scoop makes the game miserable for other people, why would you do that in a table with friends? because doing it in a table of random people in your LGS the only thing that willa complish is that they killed you first and dont get invited anymore (at last if I am in that table)
I can understand conceading in response to Thieves' Auction (I wouldn't do it but I understand why), but conceading at instant speed to deny the life gain or card draw of an attacker seems unaceptable to me.
If player 1 is atacking player 2, and player 1 concedes so player 2 dont get the card draw, life gain or even a wincon I will talk to player 3 to count as if the concesion was invalid, so even if the player 2 isnt there anymore I will ask player 3 to agree to grant the atacker all the benefits he would have if the player 2 hasn't scooped.
For me, that kind of scooping is abusing a 'game mechanic' in a very poor sportamnship way and is borderline cheating
EDH: RWB Edgar Markov The current updated decklist is here
EDH: WUB Oloro, Ageless ascetic The current updated decklist is here
EDH: UWG Phelddagrif, The current updated decklist is here
EDH: WUB Yennett, Cryptic Sovereign The current updated decklist is here
EDH: WUB Alela, Artful provocateur The current updated decklist is here
EDH: GB Hapatra, vizier of poisons The current updated decklist is here
Nobody is talking about "forcing" anyone to anything. I am talking about good behaviour, sportsmanship, not ruining the game for your friends (I am not talking about MOL).
The bribery example was a just that, an example, the player I am talking abut will conceade if he thinks he is being the focus of atacks, or if he thinks we should attack someone else, etc.
EDH: RWB Edgar Markov The current updated decklist is here
EDH: WUB Oloro, Ageless ascetic The current updated decklist is here
EDH: UWG Phelddagrif, The current updated decklist is here
EDH: WUB Yennett, Cryptic Sovereign The current updated decklist is here
EDH: WUB Alela, Artful provocateur The current updated decklist is here
EDH: GB Hapatra, vizier of poisons The current updated decklist is here
If we accept this, then what is the right answer? never cast Bribery on that player because he will scoop? or casting it knowing it will be player removal instead of the thing it should do?
This is different, If I am playing a monogreen and you cast Iona, shield of emeria for green and I have not scourge from existence in my deck or nevyral disk, then it is ok to say that and concede if we are the last one , but trust me, If the game is not 1v1 and you cast Iona for my mono color I will be still in the game and wont conceade
EDH: RWB Edgar Markov The current updated decklist is here
EDH: WUB Oloro, Ageless ascetic The current updated decklist is here
EDH: UWG Phelddagrif, The current updated decklist is here
EDH: WUB Yennett, Cryptic Sovereign The current updated decklist is here
EDH: WUB Alela, Artful provocateur The current updated decklist is here
EDH: GB Hapatra, vizier of poisons The current updated decklist is here
I want to talk about the 'moral' aspects of conceding and if it is or is not a good practice
I think conceding is a 'bad player's' choice (bad not for skill reasons) and these are my thoughts abut it.
Sometimes in some games we will want it to end because it is looking bad for us, one or more opponents just focuses on us, or we are mana screw, or we misplayed a lot or any other reason that is taking the fun away from us.
I know the feeling, I have been there a lot of times and I will be there a lot more, but no matter hw bad is the game for me, no matter how much I want to concede I don't do it for these reasons
1. It is a game we play with friends, so, we should have our focus on having fun altogether, if I am the victim of a focus by two players and I rage-quit the game, I will leave the table, but the bad feeling will stay at the table, so why ruining the game for the other players?
2. The game is not over for us until our life total get's 0, so we can try to overcome the problems, maybe winning sometimes will be very out of our reach in some games, but we can try, we can learn, we can take the opportunity to study how our deck behaves against such games and how to improve it.
3, Maybe one or 2 players are focusing on us to 'have revenge' for past games, and that is ok too, I remember a session were I won 2 games in a row, one player was very salty because I killed him first at 1st game, then he 'side boarded' tons of counter spells with the sole focus of not letting me play and I won the 2nd game too and other player got salted, so when we got to the 3rd game, I knew they will be focusing me, I got mana screw, I had 5 lands at turn 7 and one of my opponents played Terastodon aiming for 3 of my 5 lands, so it was pretty much game over for me, but I didn't concede, I play to the end working hard to overcome the situation, to survive long enough and try to win, I din't won, I was killed first, they had the blood they wanted and we all had fun, no bad feeling at my side of the table.
So, if the players are focusing you because you won too many games, or you commander is scary or any other reason, just suck it up
4. Some times some one will cast Bribery on us, nobody want's our opponents having our stuff, but conceding to an effect like this, or a annihilator X or any other bad stuff just ruins the game for your friends.
What is the deal then? The opponents can't target us bribery or similar effects because 'in response' we will concede and it will be a wasted attack or a 'counterspell like'?. For me this kind of behavior show bad sportsmanship to say the least.
5. Let people do their magic, if you are in a 1v1 against the last player, and he will attack us for lethal, let him do it, it wont take more than 30 seconds, do you feel better saying 'concede' than 'lose'? is that it?
So many times I saw that a player gets his engine going, he is getting the upper hand against the last one, the last player knows the game is not in his favor, so he concedes, well that is also bad sportsmanship, because you may find a way to overcome it, and even if you don't, the winning player build his or her deck to do some magic and it is doing it, by conceding 2 or 3 turns earlier we are taking away his fun
What are your thoughts?
EDH: RWB Edgar Markov The current updated decklist is here
EDH: WUB Oloro, Ageless ascetic The current updated decklist is here
EDH: UWG Phelddagrif, The current updated decklist is here
EDH: WUB Yennett, Cryptic Sovereign The current updated decklist is here
EDH: WUB Alela, Artful provocateur The current updated decklist is here
EDH: GB Hapatra, vizier of poisons The current updated decklist is here