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.
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.
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.
Radha player needs 2 more mana than he has to eliminate player C. Radha has me dead to rights, and a Neheb to get the mana he needs post combat. Radha cannot safely attack player C with any creature, including his Neheb, but I have no blocks that prevent him from killing me if he swings out.
I inform him I'll scoop before damage if he swings at me for lethal. Ultimately, he attacks me with Neheb and nothing else. I survive, he kills player C, and the game continues, giving me a chance at coming back. I did not ultimately win the game, but the threat of concession resulted in me not being killed that turn, exactly as described.
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.
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.
The odds of that are low to start with im most instances (as you stated) and would only get smaller (at least in my playgroup) as that threaten to scoop implies to me (the player who your threatening) and the other players (the ones that might benefit) that you are still a threat to be recognized and its more likely that 1. I kill you and get a deal with the others for doing so. 2. If I don't kill you the other people still know that you are a threat and will likely kill you. 3.So to not loose to each other they will kill you together. 4. Keep you alive with the ability to kill you any instant.
So I get why its tactical and see why you don't deal with it but even if you were besides the ire of someone else you don't really get much out of it.
Even though I Personally wouldn't like to play in Fenrirs Group (I really don't like active Kingmaking) there is no reason to attack him (or his way of doing things) personally if you are not part of his group. "Closed" Groups can do what they want and if everyones happy why not.
Also for me this is only an issue in pick up groups or "open groups" where houseruling is difficult due to ever changing group constellations. And In those I wish people would refrain from "speed scooping".
Not happy with the Vote options.
If you gotta leave you gotta leave go whenever.
If you don't have fun and your leaving has little to no impact on the game concede.
If you CLEARLY don't have a way to win (As in out in a few rounds due to no outs and other peoples outs just delay the inevitable) cencession is fine.
If You leaving would have a big impact on the game and you still have a chance to win, if you want to quit at least give a heads up.
(So no stuff like stay in wait for the attack against you and then leave without saying that you will to that) This can be considered a "tactical concession" (If you attack me i will concede)
I think thats fine even though I would not consider that a "tactical" move because I fail to see how that Improves your chance of winning.
Keep in mind that in PUGs especially Online it takes time to set up and find people and If you are prone to early concessions you are probably viewed in a negative light as you just wasted their time.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
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.
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:
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.
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.
The odds of that are low to start with im most instances (as you stated) and would only get smaller (at least in my playgroup) as that threaten to scoop implies to me (the player who your threatening) and the other players (the ones that might benefit) that you are still a threat to be recognized and its more likely that 1. I kill you and get a deal with the others for doing so. 2. If I don't kill you the other people still know that you are a threat and will likely kill you. 3.So to not loose to each other they will kill you together. 4. Keep you alive with the ability to kill you any instant.
So I get why its tactical and see why you don't deal with it but even if you were besides the ire of someone else you don't really get much out of it.
Even though I Personally wouldn't like to play in Fenrirs Group (I really don't like active Kingmaking) there is no reason to attack him (or his way of doing things) personally if you are not part of his group. "Closed" Groups can do what they want and if everyones happy why not.
Also for me this is only an issue in pick up groups or "open groups" where houseruling is difficult due to ever changing group constellations. And In those I wish people would refrain from "speed scooping".
If you gotta leave you gotta leave go whenever.
If you don't have fun and your leaving has little to no impact on the game concede.
If you CLEARLY don't have a way to win (As in out in a few rounds due to no outs and other peoples outs just delay the inevitable) cencession is fine.
If You leaving would have a big impact on the game and you still have a chance to win, if you want to quit at least give a heads up.
(So no stuff like stay in wait for the attack against you and then leave without saying that you will to that) This can be considered a "tactical concession" (If you attack me i will concede)
I think thats fine even though I would not consider that a "tactical" move because I fail to see how that Improves your chance of winning.
Keep in mind that in PUGs especially Online it takes time to set up and find people and If you are prone to early concessions you are probably viewed in a negative light as you just wasted their time.