For me anyway I didn't come to argue a point just present my experience and feelings on the matter.
Surely you're welcome to rebut that I guess but you're not going to get very far with me telling me how I feel is invalid
True enough - I think my more measured response would be that, at least from my perspective, the shift you've described is, at worst, a wash in terms of "what I wish to see in EDH". I don't wish to see uninteractive combos, but I also don't like 1-card combos - even if they are more interactive.
The scenario that would illustrate, to me, that speed scooping is having a negative impact on a meta would be if you (or anyone) shifted from a non-combo approach to a combo one because of speed-scooping. Moving from one combo to another is more of a lateral move, imo.
EDIT: also, that sounds like a "spite scoop" rather than a "tactical scoop". I'm generally against spite scoops - although if your meta is trying to discourage you from playing those combos, then I can see some justification in it.
Even while though i disagree with him, he did state the "benefits" of doing so, he even makes the distinction of if you don't do it with any benefit then it is not tactical scooping.
I agree that the psychological and in the current game things are different but if you want to use EVERY edge you can that doesn't matter since overall you will most likely loose more than you gain.
I also agree that sometimes its best to not attack /kill someone but that is "usually" not because of a tac scoop threat, because if it were the psycological aspect will be "most likely" the death of that player.
But I think we are at the point where we all put our opinions forth and start to repeat ourselves more and more.
This is probably as close as we'll get to an agreement. I'm definitely getting a bit sick of the topic =/
I've responded to that exact argument, almost word for word, multiple times. You ARE getting ahead by using tac scoops. And you aren't "doing it just to deny another player's actions".
To preserve my sanity, I'll just request you read my previous posts if you're interested in understanding.
I have watched that exact skew in a several metas - getting to play out your lines instead of having them thrown in your face is a strong incentive.
As for my example, it was a tac scoop because we were playing fundamentally different kinds of decks - (1) I personally on principle have no reason to back down to a scoop ever, but in a more hypothetical context regarding the example, the copy play was a hail mary and if I didn't land it, I did not have the board presence to impact the game for much longer. It was that play or be dead in the water, which for players without a policy of Go Ahead And Scoop I Don't Negotiate Like That would be plenty of reason to back down. (2) Due to circumstances related above, if he could have gotten me to back down, the rest of the table (including him) had the presence to almost certainly grind me out before I got anything else done.
EDIT: A corollary to my point is that by discouraging interaction, tac-scooping encourages a more boring, linear approach to the format by punishing "clever" just-under-the-line plays where someone ekes out a win or dodges a blowout by smartly interacting with the board or game state.
Your weak position isn't relevant to the context, what matters is whether your copy spell and associated mana is worth more than him conceding, which is probably not the case. If you really are screwed on board, then If he scoops or you back down, you lose either way. Hence, no reason to back down.
Theoretically he could offer long-term favors for backing down, but that's getting a bit far down the rabbit hole.
I don't know how many times I can make my point about "tactical" (read: exploitative) scooping encouraging a meta to skew toward non-interactive combo as an archetype immune to being wrenched by scooping. If people know that needing to deal damage to a player or target a player's board will expose them to petty methods like the spite scoop, they have a very direct incentive to build in ways that don't require those vulnerabilities so that they don't have to experience the supreme "feelbads" of a play being stolen by someone taking their ball and going home.
EDIT: One of my all-time favorite wins was off of a copy of someone else's T&N, memorably sniping a victory off my friend's play when he KNEW my deck was better equipped to use the spell and packing copy spells. That interaction would have been impossible in a speed-scooping meta/with a player who supports speed-scooping, he would have just forfeit on the spot instead of accepting the play.
I don't know how many times I'll have to reply with the same counterargument - if people wanted to build decks with the utmost power in mind, speed scooping would be basically irrelevant because uninteractive combo is the most powerful option regardless. Most people don't do that, ergo we can assume that they aren't building for maximum power. A rarely-relevant thing like speed-scooping is unlikely to suddenly turn them all into combo players if they didn't want to do that in the first place.
And as always - if you don't like the rules, you can always amend them. Or campaign to wotc/the RC to change them.
As for your example, it's a fine example for pointless spite scooping but not for TACTICAL scooping. Does anyone in this thread who hates tac scooping even understand what tac scooping is? Your friend has no bargaining room because (1) you would have no reason to back down even if he did threaten to scoop, and (2) either way your friend will lose the game, so he has nothing to gain. As soon as you've revealed the copy spell in hand, your friend has lost. In that circumstance, he may as well let you kill everyone to start the next game faster, rather than scoop and prolong it.
I'm certainly not in favor of spiteful, pointless plays. So I would agree that your friend shouldn't scoop in that circumstance.
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?
Scooping is part of the game, it's right there in the rules. Physically or emotionally threatening someone is not part of the game, and depending on the context, it may even be a crime. If you can't see the distinction I feel like maybe you should take a long, hard look in the mirror.
Also, just like...massive facepalm at another attempt to brag about yourself as though that had any relevance to the argument, very impressive debate tactic, A+
And sure, scooping can be spiteful. Any move can be spiteful, it just depends on the attitude of the person doing it. The attitude is what matters, not the move (so long as the move is legal, which scooping is). Be mad at poor sportsmanship, don't be mad at a legal game move.
[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.
That is one good downside IMO. You see the people in here who are vehemently against it and If you have such people in your group you basically lowered your chance of winning future games.
And even those who arent vehemently against it will become vary if you win one or two games after getting a tac scoop win, and will be more likely to kill you together. (At least in my opinion, as a heavy comeback win is something people tend to remember thus skewing threat assesment) And even if you don't win, everyone who gets out before you will probably remember that as well especially if one of those people is the one who "spared" you.
So if you win its more of a won the battle but lost the war kinda scenario, and if you loose doing that (which in many cases is still likely) you gained nothing.
EDIT:
Magic is a game of calculated risks. Even if there's a strong chance for you to recover and win, if losing triggers to your scoop hurts the attacker's chances to win more than leaving you alive, then it's correct for them to leave you alive. Depending on the circumstances, it could theoretically be correct for someone to leave you alive even if you have a 90% chance to win.
True magic is a game of calculated risks but in such an scenario you'd think the other people will chime in and kill him anyways as for them it gives them a higher chance of wining, same with sth like a crackback truce.
There's kind of two topics here - one being the correctness of sparing the speed scooper, and one being the psychological impact of someone recovering from nearly scooping and going on to win.
As far as the first thing - objectively, there will be times when it's absolutely correct to spare the speed scooper, even if the odds of them winning are quite high. There will also be many times when it isn't. Obviously it doesn't matter at all if you aren't relying on some sort of triggers, and then those triggers have to generally be pretty valuable, and usually the target's chances to win aren't super high (usually, but not always). So speed-scooping frequently isn't even an issue, or if it is, it's frequently an easy "sorry, killing you anyway". But being the best at magic means leveraging EVERY tool, and tac scooping is a tool, even if it's not one that commonly comes up. Whether or not you recover and win should have no impact on whether or not the player sparing you was correct. If it was the right move, it was the right move. Don't be too focused on the results of one specific game.
The psychology thing is totally dependent on your group, so I don't think there's much constructive to say about it. As I said, I don't bother since a lot of people do take umbrage with it. But if your group has a history of accepting speed scooping - well, it's part of the rules, why shouldn't they? In which case, doing it appropriately would indeed be a skill worth having. I think it's worth having a working knowledge of the strategy, in case one finds oneself somewhere where the practice is encouraged.
I built Inalla and Wanderwine prophets was one of my wincons. It requires someone being unable to block and a lot of mana to set up (something like 10 or so).
All three times I went for it the target hate scooped. So I removed it and went for less interactive combos.
My feeling is mostly that you should be a gentleman about scooping; scoop any time but only if it's not going to change the course of the game materially, and ask.
Oh no, your 1-card-combo-with-the-commander-that-doesn't-even-need-to-be-cast didn't work? What a sad, sad story.
I kid - in a competitive meta I'm sure it's a reasonable combo, and not annoying combo around a badly-designed abomination of a commander . But if moving to even less interactive combos was an acceptable direction for your meta, I don't think I'd personally have much interest in playing there. So it's hard to feel much sympathy for you.
If your goal was to say "look, speed scooping drives out fair wincons!" then...mission not accomplished. Sorry.
And he didn't kill you then but seemingly could kill you anyways (Don't know since I wasn't there) so you gained nothing but a turn. If its easier for him to let you live because he could kill you irregardles of what you do but not so much player C the only thing you gained is one turn. If he couldn't do that and looses to you he wouldnt have gained anything if he killed you and died to C he wouldnt have gained anything. To me that still looks like barely an increase in the tac scoopers win percentage. I get it, it is not 0 but it is below 1%, and it gets (presumably) smaller everytime you pull it of in the same group as people will become vary of keeping you alive (not just the guy you tac. scoop on but your other opponents as well)
As I said before I do not mind tac scooping i just think the downsides outweigh the benefits.
What's the downsides? I mean, if people get mad at you for doing it, then there's that - but otherwise you're usually only doing it in circumstances where you'd be guaranteed dead otherwise. There's literally nothing to lose.
Magic is a game of calculated risks. Even if there's a strong chance for you to recover and win, if losing triggers to your scoop hurts the attacker's chances to win more than leaving you alive, then it's correct for them to leave you alive. Depending on the circumstances, it could theoretically be correct for someone to leave you alive even if you have a 90% chance to win.
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
Nothing says "losing the argument" quite like trying to turn it into a deck measuring contest. (And not that it's relevant, but you'd lose. Badly.)
Of course anyone is free not to play with anyone else (thought that's not exactly within the scope of the comp rules). If you actually played me, it almost certainly wouldn't come up - as I've said repeatedly, I personally don't actually bother with tac scooping because people tend to get whiny about it. And if you wanted to house rule it so that it wasn't legal, I'd be perfectly happy with that too.
My only point is that, without house rules, it's a perfectly legal part of the game that adds some underutilized strategic complexity - and that a player's attitude and commitment to a good game is far more important than whether or not you find their actual game actions distasteful.
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
How do you propose we differentiate between "exploits to the rules" and "the rules"?
I remember, as wee lad, being very annoyed and confused that astral slide would return morph creatures like krosan colossus face up after exiling them. This seemed like it couldn't possibly be an intended part of the rules to me, as a kid. It seemed like a cheat, an exploit.
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
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 distinction between "in game play" and "non-game play" is an illusion you've dreamed up to convince yourself that your position is justified by more than an opinion. Legally, conceding is very much part of the game and is right there in the comp rules, including what to do when someone concedes in multiplayer. If you think this rule sucks, then that's fine, you're allowed to think it sucks, but don't pretend there's some element of the rules justifying your position because there isn't: in fact it's very much the opposite.
Personally I'd say the person who concedes, and the person who self-bolts, in response to an insurrection without any attempt to politic are both guilty of the same crime - sucking at magic. And I do find it annoying when other people's misplays cost me the game. It's not at all the same thing as a fog, because fogging the insurrection is a good play instead of a bad, pointless, spiteful one. That said - though someone killing themselves (by any means) solely to deprive me of a win without any attempt to leverage that power would annoy me, it is perfectly legal to do so.
The vast majority of the time, people speed-scooping are NOT tactical-scooping; they're just scooping out of salty rage and trying to do as much damage as possible on the way out. And we can agree that this is annoying, absolutely. But it's also annoying when someone is a salty ragemonster and DOESN'T concede - the problem is playing with someone who's childish, NOT the game actions that they're taking. But don't equate smart politicking using tac concessions with babyrage scooping, because they aren't the same thing. And if you're trying to badmouth tac concessions by talking about people who are ragequitting, then all you've proven is that you don't understand a word I'm saying.
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 )
I agree with what you're saying here. Intent is important. In my experience as well, "tactical scooping" has only ever happened because someone was upset. My opinion is mainly influenced by that fact.
I think that's probably the main reason people are so anti-tac-scooping (also - I'd call it "spite scooping" if they aren't trying to make any attempt to change the person's actions in advance, but scooping without warning just to deny triggers - which is usually what happens when someone's upset). Few people do it well/correctly, because to do so you kind of need to be somewhat calm despite your imminent demise. I think most people who hate speed scooping (catch-all for spite and tac scooping) and think it's childish aren't talking about someone using it correctly as their last line of defense, but someone who's just angry and wants to wreak as much havoc as possible before leaving.
Taking your triggers and going home, then. That's assuming you would have gained life or gotten a Sword trigger had they not conceded in response to an attack. But I've had someone concede in response to having their Avacyn stolen with Bolas. It did not cause them or any other player to lose, nor was anyone in immediate danger of losing. So it's not the same as eliminating someone normally, because you can usually predict when you're going to kill someone, but you can't always predict when someone is going to become tilted and lose to spite you.
How about a different example: Threaten to only target that one player with any and all counterspells, removal, combat damage, etc. in all future games for time immemorial. This is likewise a legal game action. Do you consider this any different?
I could say something about how games should be self-contained, but I don't actually believe that - if someone lies to me in a game, I'm less likely to believe them in the future; if they play really well, I'm more likely to watch them carefully in the future.
No, I think the real issue is simply: it's a bad move. I wouldn't like it for the same reason I wouldn't like someone who just never played any cards and sat there calmly discarding to max hand size. Or that guy who plays armageddon when another player is way ahead on board "just for lulz". Threatening to play worse for all future games is a ludicrous threat to make - I wouldn't believe them, and I'd take their future threats less seriously. And if they did actually follow through, they'd be making bad moves every time they targeted that player when it wasn't reasonable. Not that I'd stop playing against someone just for being a bit crap at magic (I'd never get to play anyone if I did that ) but deliberately playing badly isn't fun imo - for any reason. Same reason I dislike people sandbagging combos "because the game should run a bit longer".
For that same reason, the guy who scoops to some random slight partway through the game is also playing badly - their chances to win were presumably much higher if they accepted the loss of avacyn, than if they (threatened to?) concede. That, I think, is the real crux of the issue - playing badly, not anything intrinsic to speed scooping per se. It just happens to be particularly hot-button because so few people do it well, and it comes up so rarely that it seems blind-siding to most people.
Threatening to scoop is a viable tactical option and removing it makes the game worse.
What exactly makes it tactical? And in what way is it viable? Because by conceding, you've lost the game (which is not a good tactic) so the only way it could be tactical is to influence people in future games. Suddenly we're not talking about politics of the game but rather politics of the group beyond just the game. So then, how is this different than threatening to flip the table if someone attacks you?
In both cases, it demonstrates childish behavior and poor sportsmanship over a game that has ramifications beyond just that game. As almost everyone else in this thread has said, anyone doing this would not be invited to my table again.
-In what sense are you "taking your ball and going home?" The game presumably continues without you, as it would have were you eliminated normally.
-The actual concession isn't tactical (except in the sense that following through on a deal you made is tactical, since it means people will believe you in the future). The tactical part is in threatening to scoop to hurt your killer, thus potentially causing them to not kill you and giving you a chance to win.
-Tactical scooping really only works if you're going to be dead (i.e. scooping to lethal lifelink attacker) or functionally dead (i.e. someone's about to steal your lands with gilt-leaf archdruid could functionally eliminate you, depending on game state). So you're ostensibly not giving anything up if you do end up scooping.
-It's different because it's a legal game action, not real-world assault?
-People can be childish when they scoop, but it's just a move. People can be childish or poor sports while doing all sorts of in-game things. Hell, I've been childish plenty of times and I basically never tac scoop. I don't think there's anything particularly childish about someone saying "Just to let you know, if you attack me for lethal, I'll scoop in response so you won't gain any life", and then that person calmly conceding when attacked. From a strategic point of view, it's the right move - even if (as I've stated) it's not generally worth the trouble, since people tend to be such babies about it in my experience.
-If you don't like tactical/spite scooping as a practice, that's totally reasonable and fair. If people are actually doing it (most aren't, in my experience) you can suggest a house ban on the practice. Hell, you can try to get the RC to change the rules to "fix" it, doesn't bother me. But for the time being, it's a totally legal move. Complaining about it is roughly the same thing as complaining about someone playing cEDH decks - it's fair to dislike it, but there's no real legal grounds for saying they're "wrong".
This sort of thing has happened to me recently at least a couple times: while playing Geth, Lord of the Vault. I have to be careful not to eliminate the people who have the best stuff I've stolen. But sometimes they scoop anyway, denying me my wincons. Maybe not as an intentional tactical ploy or even just to screw me over, but their act of scooping has, in fact, screwed me over. And they did it at sorcery speed.
Similarly, games where I need the other player's help to take down the more powerful opponent, but my would-be-ally feels they're too far behind and scoops, putting me in a fairly unwinnable war against a more powerful enemy alone. Wasn't spiteful or tactical, was at sorcery speed - but their act of scooping did screw me over.
Anyway I'm just saying, there's not necessarily a simple delineation between spite/tac scooping and "I'm bored of this game and don't think I have a chance, so I'ma leave" scooping.
The scenario that would illustrate, to me, that speed scooping is having a negative impact on a meta would be if you (or anyone) shifted from a non-combo approach to a combo one because of speed-scooping. Moving from one combo to another is more of a lateral move, imo.
EDIT: also, that sounds like a "spite scoop" rather than a "tactical scoop". I'm generally against spite scoops - although if your meta is trying to discourage you from playing those combos, then I can see some justification in it.
This is probably as close as we'll get to an agreement. I'm definitely getting a bit sick of the topic =/
EDH Primers
Phelddagrif - Zirilan
EDH
Thrasios+Bruse - Pang - Sasaya - Wydwen - Feather - Rona - Toshiro - Sylvia+Khorvath - Geth - QMarchesa - Firesong - Athreos - Arixmethes - Isperia - Etali - Silas+Sidar - Saskia - Virtus+Gorm - Kynaios - Naban - Aryel - Mizzix - Kazuul - Tymna+Kraum - Sidar+Tymna - Ayli - Gwendlyn - Phelddagrif 4 - Liliana - Kaervek - Phelddagrif 3 - Mairsil - Scarab - Child - Phenax - Shirei - Thada - Depala - Circu - Kytheon - GrenzoHR - Phelddagrif - Reyhan+Kraum - Toshiro - Varolz - Nin - Ojutai - Tasigur - Zedruu - Uril - Edric - Wort - Zurgo - Nahiri - Grenzo - Kozilek - Yisan - Ink-Treader - Yisan - Brago - Sidisi - Toshiro - Alexi - Sygg - Brimaz - Sek'Kuar - Marchesa - Vish Kal - Iroas - Phelddagrif - Ephara - Derevi - Glissa - Wanderer - Saffi - Melek - Xiahou Dun - Lazav - Lin Sivvi - Zirilan - Glissa
PDH - Drake - Graverobber - Izzet GM - Tallowisp - Symbiote Brawl - Feather - Ugin - Jace - Scarab - Angrath - Vraska - Kumena Oathbreaker - Wrenn&6
To preserve my sanity, I'll just request you read my previous posts if you're interested in understanding.
EDH Primers
Phelddagrif - Zirilan
EDH
Thrasios+Bruse - Pang - Sasaya - Wydwen - Feather - Rona - Toshiro - Sylvia+Khorvath - Geth - QMarchesa - Firesong - Athreos - Arixmethes - Isperia - Etali - Silas+Sidar - Saskia - Virtus+Gorm - Kynaios - Naban - Aryel - Mizzix - Kazuul - Tymna+Kraum - Sidar+Tymna - Ayli - Gwendlyn - Phelddagrif 4 - Liliana - Kaervek - Phelddagrif 3 - Mairsil - Scarab - Child - Phenax - Shirei - Thada - Depala - Circu - Kytheon - GrenzoHR - Phelddagrif - Reyhan+Kraum - Toshiro - Varolz - Nin - Ojutai - Tasigur - Zedruu - Uril - Edric - Wort - Zurgo - Nahiri - Grenzo - Kozilek - Yisan - Ink-Treader - Yisan - Brago - Sidisi - Toshiro - Alexi - Sygg - Brimaz - Sek'Kuar - Marchesa - Vish Kal - Iroas - Phelddagrif - Ephara - Derevi - Glissa - Wanderer - Saffi - Melek - Xiahou Dun - Lazav - Lin Sivvi - Zirilan - Glissa
PDH - Drake - Graverobber - Izzet GM - Tallowisp - Symbiote Brawl - Feather - Ugin - Jace - Scarab - Angrath - Vraska - Kumena Oathbreaker - Wrenn&6
Theoretically he could offer long-term favors for backing down, but that's getting a bit far down the rabbit hole.
EDH Primers
Phelddagrif - Zirilan
EDH
Thrasios+Bruse - Pang - Sasaya - Wydwen - Feather - Rona - Toshiro - Sylvia+Khorvath - Geth - QMarchesa - Firesong - Athreos - Arixmethes - Isperia - Etali - Silas+Sidar - Saskia - Virtus+Gorm - Kynaios - Naban - Aryel - Mizzix - Kazuul - Tymna+Kraum - Sidar+Tymna - Ayli - Gwendlyn - Phelddagrif 4 - Liliana - Kaervek - Phelddagrif 3 - Mairsil - Scarab - Child - Phenax - Shirei - Thada - Depala - Circu - Kytheon - GrenzoHR - Phelddagrif - Reyhan+Kraum - Toshiro - Varolz - Nin - Ojutai - Tasigur - Zedruu - Uril - Edric - Wort - Zurgo - Nahiri - Grenzo - Kozilek - Yisan - Ink-Treader - Yisan - Brago - Sidisi - Toshiro - Alexi - Sygg - Brimaz - Sek'Kuar - Marchesa - Vish Kal - Iroas - Phelddagrif - Ephara - Derevi - Glissa - Wanderer - Saffi - Melek - Xiahou Dun - Lazav - Lin Sivvi - Zirilan - Glissa
PDH - Drake - Graverobber - Izzet GM - Tallowisp - Symbiote Brawl - Feather - Ugin - Jace - Scarab - Angrath - Vraska - Kumena Oathbreaker - Wrenn&6
And as always - if you don't like the rules, you can always amend them. Or campaign to wotc/the RC to change them.
As for your example, it's a fine example for pointless spite scooping but not for TACTICAL scooping. Does anyone in this thread who hates tac scooping even understand what tac scooping is? Your friend has no bargaining room because (1) you would have no reason to back down even if he did threaten to scoop, and (2) either way your friend will lose the game, so he has nothing to gain. As soon as you've revealed the copy spell in hand, your friend has lost. In that circumstance, he may as well let you kill everyone to start the next game faster, rather than scoop and prolong it.
I'm certainly not in favor of spiteful, pointless plays. So I would agree that your friend shouldn't scoop in that circumstance.
EDH Primers
Phelddagrif - Zirilan
EDH
Thrasios+Bruse - Pang - Sasaya - Wydwen - Feather - Rona - Toshiro - Sylvia+Khorvath - Geth - QMarchesa - Firesong - Athreos - Arixmethes - Isperia - Etali - Silas+Sidar - Saskia - Virtus+Gorm - Kynaios - Naban - Aryel - Mizzix - Kazuul - Tymna+Kraum - Sidar+Tymna - Ayli - Gwendlyn - Phelddagrif 4 - Liliana - Kaervek - Phelddagrif 3 - Mairsil - Scarab - Child - Phenax - Shirei - Thada - Depala - Circu - Kytheon - GrenzoHR - Phelddagrif - Reyhan+Kraum - Toshiro - Varolz - Nin - Ojutai - Tasigur - Zedruu - Uril - Edric - Wort - Zurgo - Nahiri - Grenzo - Kozilek - Yisan - Ink-Treader - Yisan - Brago - Sidisi - Toshiro - Alexi - Sygg - Brimaz - Sek'Kuar - Marchesa - Vish Kal - Iroas - Phelddagrif - Ephara - Derevi - Glissa - Wanderer - Saffi - Melek - Xiahou Dun - Lazav - Lin Sivvi - Zirilan - Glissa
PDH - Drake - Graverobber - Izzet GM - Tallowisp - Symbiote Brawl - Feather - Ugin - Jace - Scarab - Angrath - Vraska - Kumena Oathbreaker - Wrenn&6
Also, just like...massive facepalm at another attempt to brag about yourself as though that had any relevance to the argument, very impressive debate tactic, A+
And sure, scooping can be spiteful. Any move can be spiteful, it just depends on the attitude of the person doing it. The attitude is what matters, not the move (so long as the move is legal, which scooping is). Be mad at poor sportsmanship, don't be mad at a legal game move.
EDH Primers
Phelddagrif - Zirilan
EDH
Thrasios+Bruse - Pang - Sasaya - Wydwen - Feather - Rona - Toshiro - Sylvia+Khorvath - Geth - QMarchesa - Firesong - Athreos - Arixmethes - Isperia - Etali - Silas+Sidar - Saskia - Virtus+Gorm - Kynaios - Naban - Aryel - Mizzix - Kazuul - Tymna+Kraum - Sidar+Tymna - Ayli - Gwendlyn - Phelddagrif 4 - Liliana - Kaervek - Phelddagrif 3 - Mairsil - Scarab - Child - Phenax - Shirei - Thada - Depala - Circu - Kytheon - GrenzoHR - Phelddagrif - Reyhan+Kraum - Toshiro - Varolz - Nin - Ojutai - Tasigur - Zedruu - Uril - Edric - Wort - Zurgo - Nahiri - Grenzo - Kozilek - Yisan - Ink-Treader - Yisan - Brago - Sidisi - Toshiro - Alexi - Sygg - Brimaz - Sek'Kuar - Marchesa - Vish Kal - Iroas - Phelddagrif - Ephara - Derevi - Glissa - Wanderer - Saffi - Melek - Xiahou Dun - Lazav - Lin Sivvi - Zirilan - Glissa
PDH - Drake - Graverobber - Izzet GM - Tallowisp - Symbiote Brawl - Feather - Ugin - Jace - Scarab - Angrath - Vraska - Kumena Oathbreaker - Wrenn&6
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.
EDH Primers
Phelddagrif - Zirilan
EDH
Thrasios+Bruse - Pang - Sasaya - Wydwen - Feather - Rona - Toshiro - Sylvia+Khorvath - Geth - QMarchesa - Firesong - Athreos - Arixmethes - Isperia - Etali - Silas+Sidar - Saskia - Virtus+Gorm - Kynaios - Naban - Aryel - Mizzix - Kazuul - Tymna+Kraum - Sidar+Tymna - Ayli - Gwendlyn - Phelddagrif 4 - Liliana - Kaervek - Phelddagrif 3 - Mairsil - Scarab - Child - Phenax - Shirei - Thada - Depala - Circu - Kytheon - GrenzoHR - Phelddagrif - Reyhan+Kraum - Toshiro - Varolz - Nin - Ojutai - Tasigur - Zedruu - Uril - Edric - Wort - Zurgo - Nahiri - Grenzo - Kozilek - Yisan - Ink-Treader - Yisan - Brago - Sidisi - Toshiro - Alexi - Sygg - Brimaz - Sek'Kuar - Marchesa - Vish Kal - Iroas - Phelddagrif - Ephara - Derevi - Glissa - Wanderer - Saffi - Melek - Xiahou Dun - Lazav - Lin Sivvi - Zirilan - Glissa
PDH - Drake - Graverobber - Izzet GM - Tallowisp - Symbiote Brawl - Feather - Ugin - Jace - Scarab - Angrath - Vraska - Kumena Oathbreaker - Wrenn&6
As far as the first thing - objectively, there will be times when it's absolutely correct to spare the speed scooper, even if the odds of them winning are quite high. There will also be many times when it isn't. Obviously it doesn't matter at all if you aren't relying on some sort of triggers, and then those triggers have to generally be pretty valuable, and usually the target's chances to win aren't super high (usually, but not always). So speed-scooping frequently isn't even an issue, or if it is, it's frequently an easy "sorry, killing you anyway". But being the best at magic means leveraging EVERY tool, and tac scooping is a tool, even if it's not one that commonly comes up. Whether or not you recover and win should have no impact on whether or not the player sparing you was correct. If it was the right move, it was the right move. Don't be too focused on the results of one specific game.
The psychology thing is totally dependent on your group, so I don't think there's much constructive to say about it. As I said, I don't bother since a lot of people do take umbrage with it. But if your group has a history of accepting speed scooping - well, it's part of the rules, why shouldn't they? In which case, doing it appropriately would indeed be a skill worth having. I think it's worth having a working knowledge of the strategy, in case one finds oneself somewhere where the practice is encouraged.
EDH Primers
Phelddagrif - Zirilan
EDH
Thrasios+Bruse - Pang - Sasaya - Wydwen - Feather - Rona - Toshiro - Sylvia+Khorvath - Geth - QMarchesa - Firesong - Athreos - Arixmethes - Isperia - Etali - Silas+Sidar - Saskia - Virtus+Gorm - Kynaios - Naban - Aryel - Mizzix - Kazuul - Tymna+Kraum - Sidar+Tymna - Ayli - Gwendlyn - Phelddagrif 4 - Liliana - Kaervek - Phelddagrif 3 - Mairsil - Scarab - Child - Phenax - Shirei - Thada - Depala - Circu - Kytheon - GrenzoHR - Phelddagrif - Reyhan+Kraum - Toshiro - Varolz - Nin - Ojutai - Tasigur - Zedruu - Uril - Edric - Wort - Zurgo - Nahiri - Grenzo - Kozilek - Yisan - Ink-Treader - Yisan - Brago - Sidisi - Toshiro - Alexi - Sygg - Brimaz - Sek'Kuar - Marchesa - Vish Kal - Iroas - Phelddagrif - Ephara - Derevi - Glissa - Wanderer - Saffi - Melek - Xiahou Dun - Lazav - Lin Sivvi - Zirilan - Glissa
PDH - Drake - Graverobber - Izzet GM - Tallowisp - Symbiote Brawl - Feather - Ugin - Jace - Scarab - Angrath - Vraska - Kumena Oathbreaker - Wrenn&6
I kid - in a competitive meta I'm sure it's a reasonable combo, and not annoying combo around a badly-designed abomination of a commander . But if moving to even less interactive combos was an acceptable direction for your meta, I don't think I'd personally have much interest in playing there. So it's hard to feel much sympathy for you.
If your goal was to say "look, speed scooping drives out fair wincons!" then...mission not accomplished. Sorry. What's the downsides? I mean, if people get mad at you for doing it, then there's that - but otherwise you're usually only doing it in circumstances where you'd be guaranteed dead otherwise. There's literally nothing to lose.
Magic is a game of calculated risks. Even if there's a strong chance for you to recover and win, if losing triggers to your scoop hurts the attacker's chances to win more than leaving you alive, then it's correct for them to leave you alive. Depending on the circumstances, it could theoretically be correct for someone to leave you alive even if you have a 90% chance to win.
EDH Primers
Phelddagrif - Zirilan
EDH
Thrasios+Bruse - Pang - Sasaya - Wydwen - Feather - Rona - Toshiro - Sylvia+Khorvath - Geth - QMarchesa - Firesong - Athreos - Arixmethes - Isperia - Etali - Silas+Sidar - Saskia - Virtus+Gorm - Kynaios - Naban - Aryel - Mizzix - Kazuul - Tymna+Kraum - Sidar+Tymna - Ayli - Gwendlyn - Phelddagrif 4 - Liliana - Kaervek - Phelddagrif 3 - Mairsil - Scarab - Child - Phenax - Shirei - Thada - Depala - Circu - Kytheon - GrenzoHR - Phelddagrif - Reyhan+Kraum - Toshiro - Varolz - Nin - Ojutai - Tasigur - Zedruu - Uril - Edric - Wort - Zurgo - Nahiri - Grenzo - Kozilek - Yisan - Ink-Treader - Yisan - Brago - Sidisi - Toshiro - Alexi - Sygg - Brimaz - Sek'Kuar - Marchesa - Vish Kal - Iroas - Phelddagrif - Ephara - Derevi - Glissa - Wanderer - Saffi - Melek - Xiahou Dun - Lazav - Lin Sivvi - Zirilan - Glissa
PDH - Drake - Graverobber - Izzet GM - Tallowisp - Symbiote Brawl - Feather - Ugin - Jace - Scarab - Angrath - Vraska - Kumena Oathbreaker - Wrenn&6
Of course anyone is free not to play with anyone else (thought that's not exactly within the scope of the comp rules). If you actually played me, it almost certainly wouldn't come up - as I've said repeatedly, I personally don't actually bother with tac scooping because people tend to get whiny about it. And if you wanted to house rule it so that it wasn't legal, I'd be perfectly happy with that too.
My only point is that, without house rules, it's a perfectly legal part of the game that adds some underutilized strategic complexity - and that a player's attitude and commitment to a good game is far more important than whether or not you find their actual game actions distasteful.
EDH Primers
Phelddagrif - Zirilan
EDH
Thrasios+Bruse - Pang - Sasaya - Wydwen - Feather - Rona - Toshiro - Sylvia+Khorvath - Geth - QMarchesa - Firesong - Athreos - Arixmethes - Isperia - Etali - Silas+Sidar - Saskia - Virtus+Gorm - Kynaios - Naban - Aryel - Mizzix - Kazuul - Tymna+Kraum - Sidar+Tymna - Ayli - Gwendlyn - Phelddagrif 4 - Liliana - Kaervek - Phelddagrif 3 - Mairsil - Scarab - Child - Phenax - Shirei - Thada - Depala - Circu - Kytheon - GrenzoHR - Phelddagrif - Reyhan+Kraum - Toshiro - Varolz - Nin - Ojutai - Tasigur - Zedruu - Uril - Edric - Wort - Zurgo - Nahiri - Grenzo - Kozilek - Yisan - Ink-Treader - Yisan - Brago - Sidisi - Toshiro - Alexi - Sygg - Brimaz - Sek'Kuar - Marchesa - Vish Kal - Iroas - Phelddagrif - Ephara - Derevi - Glissa - Wanderer - Saffi - Melek - Xiahou Dun - Lazav - Lin Sivvi - Zirilan - Glissa
PDH - Drake - Graverobber - Izzet GM - Tallowisp - Symbiote Brawl - Feather - Ugin - Jace - Scarab - Angrath - Vraska - Kumena Oathbreaker - Wrenn&6
I remember, as wee lad, being very annoyed and confused that astral slide would return morph creatures like krosan colossus face up after exiling them. This seemed like it couldn't possibly be an intended part of the rules to me, as a kid. It seemed like a cheat, an exploit.
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
EDH Primers
Phelddagrif - Zirilan
EDH
Thrasios+Bruse - Pang - Sasaya - Wydwen - Feather - Rona - Toshiro - Sylvia+Khorvath - Geth - QMarchesa - Firesong - Athreos - Arixmethes - Isperia - Etali - Silas+Sidar - Saskia - Virtus+Gorm - Kynaios - Naban - Aryel - Mizzix - Kazuul - Tymna+Kraum - Sidar+Tymna - Ayli - Gwendlyn - Phelddagrif 4 - Liliana - Kaervek - Phelddagrif 3 - Mairsil - Scarab - Child - Phenax - Shirei - Thada - Depala - Circu - Kytheon - GrenzoHR - Phelddagrif - Reyhan+Kraum - Toshiro - Varolz - Nin - Ojutai - Tasigur - Zedruu - Uril - Edric - Wort - Zurgo - Nahiri - Grenzo - Kozilek - Yisan - Ink-Treader - Yisan - Brago - Sidisi - Toshiro - Alexi - Sygg - Brimaz - Sek'Kuar - Marchesa - Vish Kal - Iroas - Phelddagrif - Ephara - Derevi - Glissa - Wanderer - Saffi - Melek - Xiahou Dun - Lazav - Lin Sivvi - Zirilan - Glissa
PDH - Drake - Graverobber - Izzet GM - Tallowisp - Symbiote Brawl - Feather - Ugin - Jace - Scarab - Angrath - Vraska - Kumena Oathbreaker - Wrenn&6
Personally I'd say the person who concedes, and the person who self-bolts, in response to an insurrection without any attempt to politic are both guilty of the same crime - sucking at magic. And I do find it annoying when other people's misplays cost me the game. It's not at all the same thing as a fog, because fogging the insurrection is a good play instead of a bad, pointless, spiteful one. That said - though someone killing themselves (by any means) solely to deprive me of a win without any attempt to leverage that power would annoy me, it is perfectly legal to do so.
The vast majority of the time, people speed-scooping are NOT tactical-scooping; they're just scooping out of salty rage and trying to do as much damage as possible on the way out. And we can agree that this is annoying, absolutely. But it's also annoying when someone is a salty ragemonster and DOESN'T concede - the problem is playing with someone who's childish, NOT the game actions that they're taking. But don't equate smart politicking using tac concessions with babyrage scooping, because they aren't the same thing. And if you're trying to badmouth tac concessions by talking about people who are ragequitting, then all you've proven is that you don't understand a word I'm saying.
EDH Primers
Phelddagrif - Zirilan
EDH
Thrasios+Bruse - Pang - Sasaya - Wydwen - Feather - Rona - Toshiro - Sylvia+Khorvath - Geth - QMarchesa - Firesong - Athreos - Arixmethes - Isperia - Etali - Silas+Sidar - Saskia - Virtus+Gorm - Kynaios - Naban - Aryel - Mizzix - Kazuul - Tymna+Kraum - Sidar+Tymna - Ayli - Gwendlyn - Phelddagrif 4 - Liliana - Kaervek - Phelddagrif 3 - Mairsil - Scarab - Child - Phenax - Shirei - Thada - Depala - Circu - Kytheon - GrenzoHR - Phelddagrif - Reyhan+Kraum - Toshiro - Varolz - Nin - Ojutai - Tasigur - Zedruu - Uril - Edric - Wort - Zurgo - Nahiri - Grenzo - Kozilek - Yisan - Ink-Treader - Yisan - Brago - Sidisi - Toshiro - Alexi - Sygg - Brimaz - Sek'Kuar - Marchesa - Vish Kal - Iroas - Phelddagrif - Ephara - Derevi - Glissa - Wanderer - Saffi - Melek - Xiahou Dun - Lazav - Lin Sivvi - Zirilan - Glissa
PDH - Drake - Graverobber - Izzet GM - Tallowisp - Symbiote Brawl - Feather - Ugin - Jace - Scarab - Angrath - Vraska - Kumena Oathbreaker - Wrenn&6
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. 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 )
EDH Primers
Phelddagrif - Zirilan
EDH
Thrasios+Bruse - Pang - Sasaya - Wydwen - Feather - Rona - Toshiro - Sylvia+Khorvath - Geth - QMarchesa - Firesong - Athreos - Arixmethes - Isperia - Etali - Silas+Sidar - Saskia - Virtus+Gorm - Kynaios - Naban - Aryel - Mizzix - Kazuul - Tymna+Kraum - Sidar+Tymna - Ayli - Gwendlyn - Phelddagrif 4 - Liliana - Kaervek - Phelddagrif 3 - Mairsil - Scarab - Child - Phenax - Shirei - Thada - Depala - Circu - Kytheon - GrenzoHR - Phelddagrif - Reyhan+Kraum - Toshiro - Varolz - Nin - Ojutai - Tasigur - Zedruu - Uril - Edric - Wort - Zurgo - Nahiri - Grenzo - Kozilek - Yisan - Ink-Treader - Yisan - Brago - Sidisi - Toshiro - Alexi - Sygg - Brimaz - Sek'Kuar - Marchesa - Vish Kal - Iroas - Phelddagrif - Ephara - Derevi - Glissa - Wanderer - Saffi - Melek - Xiahou Dun - Lazav - Lin Sivvi - Zirilan - Glissa
PDH - Drake - Graverobber - Izzet GM - Tallowisp - Symbiote Brawl - Feather - Ugin - Jace - Scarab - Angrath - Vraska - Kumena Oathbreaker - Wrenn&6
I could say something about how games should be self-contained, but I don't actually believe that - if someone lies to me in a game, I'm less likely to believe them in the future; if they play really well, I'm more likely to watch them carefully in the future.
No, I think the real issue is simply: it's a bad move. I wouldn't like it for the same reason I wouldn't like someone who just never played any cards and sat there calmly discarding to max hand size. Or that guy who plays armageddon when another player is way ahead on board "just for lulz". Threatening to play worse for all future games is a ludicrous threat to make - I wouldn't believe them, and I'd take their future threats less seriously. And if they did actually follow through, they'd be making bad moves every time they targeted that player when it wasn't reasonable. Not that I'd stop playing against someone just for being a bit crap at magic (I'd never get to play anyone if I did that ) but deliberately playing badly isn't fun imo - for any reason. Same reason I dislike people sandbagging combos "because the game should run a bit longer".
For that same reason, the guy who scoops to some random slight partway through the game is also playing badly - their chances to win were presumably much higher if they accepted the loss of avacyn, than if they (threatened to?) concede. That, I think, is the real crux of the issue - playing badly, not anything intrinsic to speed scooping per se. It just happens to be particularly hot-button because so few people do it well, and it comes up so rarely that it seems blind-siding to most people.
Nice use of the word "immemorial" btw.
EDH Primers
Phelddagrif - Zirilan
EDH
Thrasios+Bruse - Pang - Sasaya - Wydwen - Feather - Rona - Toshiro - Sylvia+Khorvath - Geth - QMarchesa - Firesong - Athreos - Arixmethes - Isperia - Etali - Silas+Sidar - Saskia - Virtus+Gorm - Kynaios - Naban - Aryel - Mizzix - Kazuul - Tymna+Kraum - Sidar+Tymna - Ayli - Gwendlyn - Phelddagrif 4 - Liliana - Kaervek - Phelddagrif 3 - Mairsil - Scarab - Child - Phenax - Shirei - Thada - Depala - Circu - Kytheon - GrenzoHR - Phelddagrif - Reyhan+Kraum - Toshiro - Varolz - Nin - Ojutai - Tasigur - Zedruu - Uril - Edric - Wort - Zurgo - Nahiri - Grenzo - Kozilek - Yisan - Ink-Treader - Yisan - Brago - Sidisi - Toshiro - Alexi - Sygg - Brimaz - Sek'Kuar - Marchesa - Vish Kal - Iroas - Phelddagrif - Ephara - Derevi - Glissa - Wanderer - Saffi - Melek - Xiahou Dun - Lazav - Lin Sivvi - Zirilan - Glissa
PDH - Drake - Graverobber - Izzet GM - Tallowisp - Symbiote Brawl - Feather - Ugin - Jace - Scarab - Angrath - Vraska - Kumena Oathbreaker - Wrenn&6
-The actual concession isn't tactical (except in the sense that following through on a deal you made is tactical, since it means people will believe you in the future). The tactical part is in threatening to scoop to hurt your killer, thus potentially causing them to not kill you and giving you a chance to win.
-Tactical scooping really only works if you're going to be dead (i.e. scooping to lethal lifelink attacker) or functionally dead (i.e. someone's about to steal your lands with gilt-leaf archdruid could functionally eliminate you, depending on game state). So you're ostensibly not giving anything up if you do end up scooping.
-It's different because it's a legal game action, not real-world assault?
-People can be childish when they scoop, but it's just a move. People can be childish or poor sports while doing all sorts of in-game things. Hell, I've been childish plenty of times and I basically never tac scoop. I don't think there's anything particularly childish about someone saying "Just to let you know, if you attack me for lethal, I'll scoop in response so you won't gain any life", and then that person calmly conceding when attacked. From a strategic point of view, it's the right move - even if (as I've stated) it's not generally worth the trouble, since people tend to be such babies about it in my experience.
-If you don't like tactical/spite scooping as a practice, that's totally reasonable and fair. If people are actually doing it (most aren't, in my experience) you can suggest a house ban on the practice. Hell, you can try to get the RC to change the rules to "fix" it, doesn't bother me. But for the time being, it's a totally legal move. Complaining about it is roughly the same thing as complaining about someone playing cEDH decks - it's fair to dislike it, but there's no real legal grounds for saying they're "wrong".
EDH Primers
Phelddagrif - Zirilan
EDH
Thrasios+Bruse - Pang - Sasaya - Wydwen - Feather - Rona - Toshiro - Sylvia+Khorvath - Geth - QMarchesa - Firesong - Athreos - Arixmethes - Isperia - Etali - Silas+Sidar - Saskia - Virtus+Gorm - Kynaios - Naban - Aryel - Mizzix - Kazuul - Tymna+Kraum - Sidar+Tymna - Ayli - Gwendlyn - Phelddagrif 4 - Liliana - Kaervek - Phelddagrif 3 - Mairsil - Scarab - Child - Phenax - Shirei - Thada - Depala - Circu - Kytheon - GrenzoHR - Phelddagrif - Reyhan+Kraum - Toshiro - Varolz - Nin - Ojutai - Tasigur - Zedruu - Uril - Edric - Wort - Zurgo - Nahiri - Grenzo - Kozilek - Yisan - Ink-Treader - Yisan - Brago - Sidisi - Toshiro - Alexi - Sygg - Brimaz - Sek'Kuar - Marchesa - Vish Kal - Iroas - Phelddagrif - Ephara - Derevi - Glissa - Wanderer - Saffi - Melek - Xiahou Dun - Lazav - Lin Sivvi - Zirilan - Glissa
PDH - Drake - Graverobber - Izzet GM - Tallowisp - Symbiote Brawl - Feather - Ugin - Jace - Scarab - Angrath - Vraska - Kumena Oathbreaker - Wrenn&6
Similarly, games where I need the other player's help to take down the more powerful opponent, but my would-be-ally feels they're too far behind and scoops, putting me in a fairly unwinnable war against a more powerful enemy alone. Wasn't spiteful or tactical, was at sorcery speed - but their act of scooping did screw me over.
Anyway I'm just saying, there's not necessarily a simple delineation between spite/tac scooping and "I'm bored of this game and don't think I have a chance, so I'ma leave" scooping.
EDH Primers
Phelddagrif - Zirilan
EDH
Thrasios+Bruse - Pang - Sasaya - Wydwen - Feather - Rona - Toshiro - Sylvia+Khorvath - Geth - QMarchesa - Firesong - Athreos - Arixmethes - Isperia - Etali - Silas+Sidar - Saskia - Virtus+Gorm - Kynaios - Naban - Aryel - Mizzix - Kazuul - Tymna+Kraum - Sidar+Tymna - Ayli - Gwendlyn - Phelddagrif 4 - Liliana - Kaervek - Phelddagrif 3 - Mairsil - Scarab - Child - Phenax - Shirei - Thada - Depala - Circu - Kytheon - GrenzoHR - Phelddagrif - Reyhan+Kraum - Toshiro - Varolz - Nin - Ojutai - Tasigur - Zedruu - Uril - Edric - Wort - Zurgo - Nahiri - Grenzo - Kozilek - Yisan - Ink-Treader - Yisan - Brago - Sidisi - Toshiro - Alexi - Sygg - Brimaz - Sek'Kuar - Marchesa - Vish Kal - Iroas - Phelddagrif - Ephara - Derevi - Glissa - Wanderer - Saffi - Melek - Xiahou Dun - Lazav - Lin Sivvi - Zirilan - Glissa
PDH - Drake - Graverobber - Izzet GM - Tallowisp - Symbiote Brawl - Feather - Ugin - Jace - Scarab - Angrath - Vraska - Kumena Oathbreaker - Wrenn&6