Real men don't scoop If you can't deal with being beaten, don't play the game. It's different in total lockdown situations where someone grinds your lifetotal 1 at a time though.
but...by scooping... they do lose... comment makes no sense.
This 'tactical scooping' happens in my meta. I often take it into consideration when playing my turn/cards.
The notion that any time you lose it's because you were outplayed or that tactically scooping is inherently spiteful are both pretty silly.
for the most part when you lose it is because you were outplayed. Sure there's some randomness in what cards you'll draw, but for the most part people lose because they were outplayed that game. "tactically scooping" is inherently spiteful. Imagine if you "tactfully scooped" in another game. Lets say you were playing Settlers of Catan and it's near the end of the game. One player is obviously ahead of everyone else and plays that card that makes everyone give all of a particular resource. In defiance another player scoops so he won't have to give his resources so he can give the other players a chance. Now do you really think this is fair to the player who was winning? You have to realize that especially in multiplayer games, that you're playing with people who have feelings. It's not cool to just think about yourself and scoop to prevent someone else from winning without interacting within the rules of the game. How would you feel if someone did that to you? There is a difference between being a graceful looser and a sore looser. Ultimately it's just a game, but you have to respect the players involved. If you play with people that are fine with "tactical scooping" then nothing I say will matter. But if you play with people who don't do that, then you have to respect their feelings.
Have you ever had an opponent's scoop ruin your chance at victory? Is it common? Does this happen more or less often in friendlier circles? Is it ever just entertaining?
Happened to me numerous times online. Some people let you get your combat triggers, others don't. Sometimes people just gotta go. It's frustrating, but I just sigh and move on. I avoid scooping like that. I feel like you earned your tiggers.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Check out my articles about EDH on MTGO HERE
Most recently looking at Morinfen!
I can't remember ever encountering a situation where someone conceding would affect the outcome of a situation (e.g. resolving an Insurrection, combat triggers). I think if I did, I'd be upset at the person conceding for not playing the game out.
It strikes me as poor sportsmanship. I like to think that the people I play with are more gracious in defeat than that.
The game I described on the previous page, I would actually call it "douche scooping." It was a totally valid move, but it was an EDH tournament, and they were friends, so the guy who scooped lost, but he knew I was going to lose too, leaving his friend to move on to the next level. Not much I could really do or say about it, and that's fine, but I totally knew what was going on there. I do personally consider it poor sportsmanship. I rarely if ever scoop in multiplayer games, simply because it could potentially shift the way the game would ultimately end.
for the most part when you lose it is because you were outplayed. Sure there's some randomness in what cards you'll draw, but for the most part people lose because they were outplayed that game.
With luck, multiplayer and possibly a tremendous difference in deck quality (due to access to cards, deckbuilding skill, etc.) there are many games won by people who played awful. I remember the last time I did tactically scoop on MTGO the archenemy played absolutely terrible and had us dead on board multiple times but was too terrible to not make mistakes. Maybe I didn't play perfectly but it was pretty clear I was the far better player.
"tactically scooping" is inherently spiteful. Imagine if you "tactfully scooped" in another game. Lets say you were playing Settlers of Catan and it's near the end of the game. One player is obviously ahead of everyone else and plays that card that makes everyone give all of a particular resource. In defiance another player scoops so he won't have to give his resources so he can give the other players a chance. Now do you really think this is fair to the player who was winning? You have to realize that especially in multiplayer games, that you're playing with people who have feelings. It's not cool to just think about yourself and scoop to prevent someone else from winning without interacting within the rules of the game. How would you feel if someone did that to you? There is a difference between being a graceful looser and a sore looser. Ultimately it's just a game, but you have to respect the players involved.
It's definitely not inherently spiteful. It can be spiteful and I'm sure it often is but it's not necessarily done out of spite. I'm not being spiteful when I do this in my playgroup or even when I did this in the MTGO game I mentioned above, it's simply the best thing I can do at that time. People do this to me in my own playgroup all the time and they aren't being spiteful about it either.
If you play with people that are fine with "tactical scooping" then nothing I say will matter. But if you play with people who don't do that, then you have to respect their feelings.
I do and I already mentioned this above. I also already mentioned I wouldn't do this in a playgroup that frowned on it.
I get that many people don't like this tactic, 100% understood. It's just that a lot of people are trying to make it out as something that's inherently evil or douchebaggish.
With luck, multiplayer and possibly a tremendous difference in deck quality (due to access to cards, deckbuilding skill, etc.) there are many games won by people who played awful. I remember the last time I did tactically scoop on MTGO the archenemy played absolutely terrible and had us dead on board multiple times but was too terrible to not make mistakes. Maybe I didn't play perfectly but it was pretty clear I was the far better player.
It's definitely not inherently spiteful. It can be spiteful and I'm sure it often is but it's not necessarily done out of spite. I'm not being spiteful when I do this in my playgroup or even when I did this in the MTGO game I mentioned above, it's simply the best thing I can do at that time. People do this to me in my own playgroup all the time and they aren't being spiteful about it either.
I do and I already mentioned this above. I also already mentioned I wouldn't do this in a playgroup that frowned on it.
I get that many people don't like this tactic, 100% understood. It's just that a lot of people are trying to make it out as something that's inherently evil or douchebaggish.
Scooping in of itself isn't a terrible thing. I know there are times when you just have no hope and you don't want to keep going. I think where it gets on my nerves is in situations where it is clearly being used to manipulate the outcome of the game (two friends, one is clearly doing better than the other, so the other scoops in such a way to ensure his friend wins over whoever else is playing with them, for example.) I don't know if this happens often, I certainly would hope not and I can honestly say I have only ever seen it happen once, but it is still a jerk move.
but...by scooping... they do lose... comment makes no sense.
This 'tactical scooping' happens in my meta. I often take it into consideration when playing my turn/cards.
A lot of players that tactical scoop do it out of spite because they lose. So they don't take it very well... and I think they should just accept that it is part of the game and nothing to be spiteful about. However, as Donald suggested, this isn't always the case (nothing is either black or white outside of monocolored decks :D).
Scooping in of itself isn't a terrible thing. I know there are times when you just have no hope and you don't want to keep going. I think where it gets on my nerves is in situations where it is clearly being used to manipulate the outcome of the game (two friends, one is clearly doing better than the other, so the other scoops in such a way to ensure his friend wins over whoever else is playing with them, for example.) I don't know if this happens often, I certainly would hope not and I can honestly say I have only ever seen it happen once, but it is still a jerk move.
It definitely can be and I'm sure often is a douche move, I'm just trying to point out that if you're playgroup is fine with it then it's not an issue. If you were to come to my group and play (you're welcome any time!) this tactic would be used against you I'm sure you'd get used to it and just accept it as part of the way my group plays. If I went to yours and you guys didn't like it I'd have no problem letting people have their lifelink and sword triggers.
I support tactical scooping mainly because i would rather have the right to scoop at any time at the cost of having it happen to me. I'm pretty sure which side of the fence your on depends on how you answer that question as we'll. funny story though someone scooped to my gitaxin probe when I was going off with DOomsday man was he mad when I called a judge and realized I still get to draw.
Scooping in of itself isn't a terrible thing. I know there are times when you just have no hope and you don't want to keep going. I think where it gets on my nerves is in situations where it is clearly being used to manipulate the outcome of the game (two friends, one is clearly doing better than the other, so the other scoops in such a way to ensure his friend wins over whoever else is playing with them, for example.) I don't know if this happens often, I certainly would hope not and I can honestly say I have only ever seen it happen once, but it is still a jerk move.
Honestly, even that, to me, largely depends on attitude. In a tournament situation like you described, it is a bit douchey, and certainly wouldn't make me inclined to play with them again outside of it. On the other hand, in a casual game, if someone figures out a way to scoop that'll make me lose, and they're obviously doing it because it's funny/some incredibly silly reason/it'll make their friend win, I'm probably going to be amused, and laugh it off, as long as the attitude is light. If the attitude is spiteful, and they're doing it not so much to make someone win as to make me lose, then yes, that'll cheese me off a little, but not any more than someone targetting me with all three Terastodon triggers when there's more threatening things on the board. In the end, I don't have a hard or fast rule about it. It depends on the players at the time, and how things have gone in the game.
situations where it is clearly being used to manipulate the outcome of the game
Exactly. Quitting a game of Monopoly because it's gone on for six hours and you want to go to bed is fine. Quitting a game of Monopoly because you rolled unlucky and don't want to pay someone because they own Boardwalk is not.
It's expected of you to do everything you can to prevent the person that's killing you from winning. If that means scooping so they don't get their sword triggers then go ahead and scoop. When I've lost a game I play kingmaker like it's my job and the other people in my group feel the same way. If someone were to come to my playgroup that did not do this it would be considered poor form, similar to me going to a playgroup that frowns on this and tactically scooping.
On MTGO I do this rarely as a lot of people dislike it but in certain situations I feel obligated if it's going to make a big impact. For example if the game has turned into Archenemy and I'm about to lose but scooping would give my allies a better chance to win I'll scoop so they have a shot.
If I went to a playgroup that frowned on this I would not do it.
Well first things first, you have to define your desired outcome. If your desired outcome is to win, then whether you scoop or lose makes no difference. And if your strategy is just to be able to pick who wins and who loses, whether you yourself lose or not, then there are probably a whole bunch of cards in your deck that are unnecessary. Might as well play a 50 Counterspell deck. What the desired outcome seems to be is some sort of mix where you both want to win and stop the guy who killed you from winning.
But first regardless, any game where I sit down and my opponent(s) have any strategy other than to win is a bit of a farce. It's not a game, as defined by game theory, because the payoffs are not defined. At best, there is de facto collusion where the desired outcome by one player is a payoff to another player. At worst, it's some sort of perverse social exercise whose precepts are hidden to me. So because it's not a game, there isn't any room for any strategy to take hold. Maro wrote in an article that strategy is a necessary aspect to designing a fun game, and in my opinion, it's a big reason a lot of people continue to play Magic. When you don't play to win, any strategy to win the game doesn't matter, which is why a lot of players say that they hate "kingmaking". It just warps strategy and obsoletes inventiveness.
Sure, there are some situations where answering something on the board of a player who is ahead with the intent of keeping a third player alive is a winning strategy. But a lot of the time your answer is good enough to stop the entire position, and so the strategy should be to let the other player die. So in the reverse roles, it's at best a gross oversimplification to say that it's your duty to prevent the player who's killing you from killing a third player subsequent to you dying.
And one thing is for sure, if players are being punished in this social exercise for taking incremental actions to win the game, then there will be an overpowering incentive for passive play, followed up by abrupt, instant wins. That's exactly the kind of EDH that a lot of players say that they don't want to play. If out-of-game influences are devaluing things like attacks, then people will just play things like combos that don't have any political aftermath and can't be interacted with in this way.
I can't remember ever encountering a situation where someone conceding would affect the outcome of a situation (e.g. resolving an Insurrection, combat triggers). I think if I did, I'd be upset at the person conceding for not playing the game out.
It strikes me as poor sportsmanship. I like to think that the people I play with are more gracious in defeat than that.
I have had the unfortunate displeasure of playing with people who don't entirely get along with one another. Most of the time games are jovial, sometimes things are in fact done out of spite. We have a few players who are rather boisterous when they're winning, and it earns them no respect around the table. When they get all excited about their Insurrection-like effects even though we've all seen them do it before, you can tell everyone wants to see something mess that up.
It doesnt justify the underhandedness involved, but because its within the rules, whomever wanted to see it happen can back that person's decision.
Well first things first, you have to define your desired outcome. If your desired outcome is to win, then whether you scoop or lose makes no difference. And if your strategy is just to be able to pick who wins and who loses, whether you yourself lose or not, then there are probably a whole bunch of cards in your deck that are unnecessary. Might as well play a 50 Counterspell deck. What the desired outcome seems to be is some sort of mix where you both want to win and stop the guy who killed you from winning.
But first regardless, any game where I sit down and my opponent(s) have any strategy other than to win is a bit of a farce. It's not a game, as defined by game theory, because the payoffs are not defined. At best, there is de facto collusion where the desired outcome by one player is a payoff to another player. At worst, it's some sort of perverse social exercise whose precepts are hidden to me. So because it's not a game, there isn't any room for any strategy to take hold. Maro wrote in an article that strategy is a necessary aspect to designing a fun game, and in my opinion, it's a big reason a lot of people continue to play Magic. When you don't play to win, any strategy to win the game doesn't matter, which is why a lot of players say that they hate "kingmaking". It just warps strategy and obsoletes inventiveness.
Sure, there are some situations where answering something on the board of a player who is ahead with the intent of keeping a third player alive is a winning strategy. But a lot of the time your answer is good enough to stop the entire position, and so the strategy should be to let the other player die. So in the reverse roles, it's at best a gross oversimplification to say that it's your duty to prevent the player who's killing you from killing a third player subsequent to you dying.
And one thing is for sure, if players are being punished in this social exercise for taking incremental actions to win the game, then there will be an overpowering incentive for passive play, followed up by abrupt, instant wins. That's exactly the kind of EDH that a lot of players say that they don't want to play. If out-of-game influences are devaluing things like attacks, then people will just play things like combos that don't have any political aftermath and can't be interacted with in this way.
I think the main goal would be "change the foreseeable and abrupt end of the game". Let me make an example.
If this guy as a 60/60 Hydra with multiple combat phases that will kill everyone in one turn BUT my Detention Sphere took out a Fleshbag Marauder, I would scoop and stir un the game for everyone and make it last a bit longer.
I dont reanimate a Jin-Gitaxias, Core Augur T2 or blink Terastodon even if I could because that would lead the game to an abrupt and sudden end. So in short, my desired outcome is to have fun/interesting/dramatic/lasting EDH games, thats why I would tactically scoop (but sorcery speed, instant speed sounds too "douchy")
Well, that is basically the same idea, difference being you happen to have a way to remove yourself that uses the stack.
It's functionally the same yes. But resources were actually expended. The end result may be the same, but nobody can say they feel cheated because of an action that is outside the game.
EDIT: I'm not saying the tactical scoop is a bad move, just that abuse of it can strain my groups desire to play more MtG that night.
Interesting side note, the example I gave didn't work because it was being recurred and Jace, Memory Adept had just ultimate-d. (even though the third deck had flash, 51000 green mana on Omnath, and had just drawn Avarice Totem and Ant Queen with Vedalken Orrery out.)
I've run across may times where an opponet scooping lost me the game. Its usualy agianst MLD or a lockdown that the player themself can't get out of, but I can in a few turns.
had they not scooped I'd of been out of it or had the lands to even the board state agian giving everyone a chance again. But its not often, but its super annoying when it happens. So I don't scoop usualy unless I'm low on time.
I think the main goal would be "change the foreseeable and abrupt end of the game". Let me make an example.
If this guy as a 60/60 Hydra with multiple combat phases that will kill everyone in one turn BUT my Detention Sphere took out a Fleshbag Marauder, I would scoop and stir un the game for everyone and make it last a bit longer.
I dont reanimate a Jin-Gitaxias, Core Augur T2 or blink Terastodon even if I could because that would lead the game to an abrupt and sudden end. So in short, my desired outcome is to have fun/interesting/dramatic/lasting EDH games, thats why I would tactically scoop (but sorcery speed, instant speed sounds too "douchy")
Well whatever goal is, it isn't to win the game. If it's not, then the purpose may seem all good and wholesome to one person, but totally arbitrary and ambiguous to the next. And if the goals are subjective and unclear, you can't have strategy. Without strategy, you have a game that arguably isn't rewarding or fun.
A lot of players that tactical scoop do it out of spite because they lose. So they don't take it very well... and I think they should just accept that it is part of the game and nothing to be spiteful about. However, as Donald suggested, this isn't always the case (nothing is either black or white outside of monocolored decks :D).
I get that. Perhaps its just my meta, but players tend to do it as a way to help those who are not in control have a chance to win. More like "jump on the grenade". I do find it annoying when I am the one in power, but when someone does it while i'm struggling with my board position, I am grateful. Especially if it leads to game development that would otherwise not be seen.
The only time I scoop is when defeat is virtually inevitable, and I never do it during combat phases as a rule. To do otherwise would be rude, since I have no reason to dick over one player over another in my playgroup.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"When does a man die? When he is hit by a bullet? No! When he suffers a disease? No! When he ate a soup made out of a poisonous mushroom? No! A man dies when he is forgotten!" Currently Piloting: EDH BGGlissa, The Traitor - Recursion (Primer) WBRKaalia of The Vast URGRiku of Two Reflections WUBSydri, Galvanic Genius UBRamirez DePietro GWKrond, The Dawn-Clad GWUDerevi, Empyrial Tactician RGOmnath, Locus of Rage
Well whatever goal is, it isn't to win the game. If it's not, then the purpose may seem all good and wholesome to one person, but totally arbitrary and ambiguous to the next. And if the goals are subjective and unclear, you can't have strategy. Without strategy, you have a game that arguably isn't rewarding or fun.
Ive had many games which I lost and were fun, winning is not mutually exclusive to having fun. Fun is a a meaning which varies among people and arguing there HAS to be strategy to have a rewarding and fun game is also quite incorrect.
Someone plays , Order of Succession, Chaos WarpTempt with Immortality[/CARTD], Warp World, or Eye of the Storm there's no strategy involved, but a random series of events that lead to unexpected results *chuckle* just for laughs and giggles. It was fun, it was entertaining and at least no one in my LGS would care who won, it was an awesome game.
If the whole purpose of playing EDH (at least in my LGS) would be TO WIN everyone would have cutthroat T1 decks and I am very glad we dont.
I get that. Perhaps its just my meta, but players tend to do it as a way to help those who are not in control have a chance to win. More like "jump on the grenade". I do find it annoying when I am the one in power, but when someone does it while i'm struggling with my board position, I am grateful. Especially if it leads to game development that would otherwise not be seen.
Ive had many games which I lost and were fun, winning is not mutually exclusive to having fun. Fun is a a meaning which varies among people and arguing there HAS to be strategy to have a rewarding and fun game is also quite incorrect.
Someone plays , Order of Succession, Chaos WarpTempt with Immortality[/CARTD], Warp World, or Eye of the Storm there's no strategy involved, but a random series of events that lead to unexpected results *chuckle* just for laughs and giggles. It was fun, it was entertaining and at least no one in my LGS would care who won, it was an awesome game.
If the whole purpose of playing EDH (at least in my LGS) would be TO WIN everyone would have cutthroat T1 decks and I am very glad we dont.
Having strategy in a game doesn't mean that the whole objective is to win. Strategy is its own purpose. Strategy is fun. Winning is one way to measure whether your strategy is effective and strategizing requires you to have clear game objectives, but there's nothing to say that people who strategize are cutthroat. They just want to play in a game that they can understand.
I, for one, wouldn't show up with a Turn 5, uninteractive combo deck. But if I do put together a pile, it's going to be for the purpose of playing the game that we all came to play, not some perverse social experiment whose rules vary from player to player.
If you lent a deck to another player and they were about to kill you, would you demand your deck back? Its entirely within your rights to take your property back, but now they have to leave the game. Scooping in response is exactly the same. Its influencing the game from outside it.
I'm simply looking for opinions in this case. I expected plenty of hate for it. I'd like to thank you for posting yours to offer diversity.
but...by scooping... they do lose... comment makes no sense.
This 'tactical scooping' happens in my meta. I often take it into consideration when playing my turn/cards.
for the most part when you lose it is because you were outplayed. Sure there's some randomness in what cards you'll draw, but for the most part people lose because they were outplayed that game. "tactically scooping" is inherently spiteful. Imagine if you "tactfully scooped" in another game. Lets say you were playing Settlers of Catan and it's near the end of the game. One player is obviously ahead of everyone else and plays that card that makes everyone give all of a particular resource. In defiance another player scoops so he won't have to give his resources so he can give the other players a chance. Now do you really think this is fair to the player who was winning? You have to realize that especially in multiplayer games, that you're playing with people who have feelings. It's not cool to just think about yourself and scoop to prevent someone else from winning without interacting within the rules of the game. How would you feel if someone did that to you? There is a difference between being a graceful looser and a sore looser. Ultimately it's just a game, but you have to respect the players involved. If you play with people that are fine with "tactical scooping" then nothing I say will matter. But if you play with people who don't do that, then you have to respect their feelings.
My Saffi deck
Happened to me numerous times online. Some people let you get your combat triggers, others don't. Sometimes people just gotta go. It's frustrating, but I just sigh and move on. I avoid scooping like that. I feel like you earned your tiggers.
Most recently looking at Morinfen!
It strikes me as poor sportsmanship. I like to think that the people I play with are more gracious in defeat than that.
With luck, multiplayer and possibly a tremendous difference in deck quality (due to access to cards, deckbuilding skill, etc.) there are many games won by people who played awful. I remember the last time I did tactically scoop on MTGO the archenemy played absolutely terrible and had us dead on board multiple times but was too terrible to not make mistakes. Maybe I didn't play perfectly but it was pretty clear I was the far better player.
It's definitely not inherently spiteful. It can be spiteful and I'm sure it often is but it's not necessarily done out of spite. I'm not being spiteful when I do this in my playgroup or even when I did this in the MTGO game I mentioned above, it's simply the best thing I can do at that time. People do this to me in my own playgroup all the time and they aren't being spiteful about it either.
I do and I already mentioned this above. I also already mentioned I wouldn't do this in a playgroup that frowned on it.
I get that many people don't like this tactic, 100% understood. It's just that a lot of people are trying to make it out as something that's inherently evil or douchebaggish.
Scooping in of itself isn't a terrible thing. I know there are times when you just have no hope and you don't want to keep going. I think where it gets on my nerves is in situations where it is clearly being used to manipulate the outcome of the game (two friends, one is clearly doing better than the other, so the other scoops in such a way to ensure his friend wins over whoever else is playing with them, for example.) I don't know if this happens often, I certainly would hope not and I can honestly say I have only ever seen it happen once, but it is still a jerk move.
A lot of players that tactical scoop do it out of spite because they lose. So they don't take it very well... and I think they should just accept that it is part of the game and nothing to be spiteful about. However, as Donald suggested, this isn't always the case (nothing is either black or white outside of monocolored decks :D).
BRGWTana and TymnaBRGW
RTeneb, the EternalR
UBRNekusar, Mind RazerUBR
Rakdos, Lord of Riots
BGWGhave, Guru of SporesBGW
Aurelia, the Warleader
BDrana, Kalastria BloodchiefB
WBROros, the AvengerWBR
It definitely can be and I'm sure often is a douche move, I'm just trying to point out that if you're playgroup is fine with it then it's not an issue. If you were to come to my group and play (you're welcome any time!) this tactic would be used against you I'm sure you'd get used to it and just accept it as part of the way my group plays. If I went to yours and you guys didn't like it I'd have no problem letting people have their lifelink and sword triggers.
Damia http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=410191
DDFT Legacyhttp://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=505247
Domain Zoo http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?p=10212429#post10212429
Honestly, even that, to me, largely depends on attitude. In a tournament situation like you described, it is a bit douchey, and certainly wouldn't make me inclined to play with them again outside of it. On the other hand, in a casual game, if someone figures out a way to scoop that'll make me lose, and they're obviously doing it because it's funny/some incredibly silly reason/it'll make their friend win, I'm probably going to be amused, and laugh it off, as long as the attitude is light. If the attitude is spiteful, and they're doing it not so much to make someone win as to make me lose, then yes, that'll cheese me off a little, but not any more than someone targetting me with all three Terastodon triggers when there's more threatening things on the board. In the end, I don't have a hard or fast rule about it. It depends on the players at the time, and how things have gone in the game.
Exactly. Quitting a game of Monopoly because it's gone on for six hours and you want to go to bed is fine. Quitting a game of Monopoly because you rolled unlucky and don't want to pay someone because they own Boardwalk is not.
Well first things first, you have to define your desired outcome. If your desired outcome is to win, then whether you scoop or lose makes no difference. And if your strategy is just to be able to pick who wins and who loses, whether you yourself lose or not, then there are probably a whole bunch of cards in your deck that are unnecessary. Might as well play a 50 Counterspell deck. What the desired outcome seems to be is some sort of mix where you both want to win and stop the guy who killed you from winning.
But first regardless, any game where I sit down and my opponent(s) have any strategy other than to win is a bit of a farce. It's not a game, as defined by game theory, because the payoffs are not defined. At best, there is de facto collusion where the desired outcome by one player is a payoff to another player. At worst, it's some sort of perverse social exercise whose precepts are hidden to me. So because it's not a game, there isn't any room for any strategy to take hold. Maro wrote in an article that strategy is a necessary aspect to designing a fun game, and in my opinion, it's a big reason a lot of people continue to play Magic. When you don't play to win, any strategy to win the game doesn't matter, which is why a lot of players say that they hate "kingmaking". It just warps strategy and obsoletes inventiveness.
Sure, there are some situations where answering something on the board of a player who is ahead with the intent of keeping a third player alive is a winning strategy. But a lot of the time your answer is good enough to stop the entire position, and so the strategy should be to let the other player die. So in the reverse roles, it's at best a gross oversimplification to say that it's your duty to prevent the player who's killing you from killing a third player subsequent to you dying.
And one thing is for sure, if players are being punished in this social exercise for taking incremental actions to win the game, then there will be an overpowering incentive for passive play, followed up by abrupt, instant wins. That's exactly the kind of EDH that a lot of players say that they don't want to play. If out-of-game influences are devaluing things like attacks, then people will just play things like combos that don't have any political aftermath and can't be interacted with in this way.
I have had the unfortunate displeasure of playing with people who don't entirely get along with one another. Most of the time games are jovial, sometimes things are in fact done out of spite. We have a few players who are rather boisterous when they're winning, and it earns them no respect around the table. When they get all excited about their Insurrection-like effects even though we've all seen them do it before, you can tell everyone wants to see something mess that up.
It doesnt justify the underhandedness involved, but because its within the rules, whomever wanted to see it happen can back that person's decision.
I think the main goal would be "change the foreseeable and abrupt end of the game". Let me make an example.
If this guy as a 60/60 Hydra with multiple combat phases that will kill everyone in one turn BUT my Detention Sphere took out a Fleshbag Marauder, I would scoop and stir un the game for everyone and make it last a bit longer.
I dont reanimate a Jin-Gitaxias, Core Augur T2 or blink Terastodon even if I could because that would lead the game to an abrupt and sudden end. So in short, my desired outcome is to have fun/interesting/dramatic/lasting EDH games, thats why I would tactically scoop (but sorcery speed, instant speed sounds too "douchy")
http://www.mtgsalvation.com/trading-post/details/805-w-underground-sea-h-revised-lands
It's functionally the same yes. But resources were actually expended. The end result may be the same, but nobody can say they feel cheated because of an action that is outside the game.
EDIT: I'm not saying the tactical scoop is a bad move, just that abuse of it can strain my groups desire to play more MtG that night.
Interesting side note, the example I gave didn't work because it was being recurred and Jace, Memory Adept had just ultimate-d. (even though the third deck had flash, 51000 green mana on Omnath, and had just drawn Avarice Totem and Ant Queen with Vedalken Orrery out.)
Kemba | Linvala | Talrand | Geth | Krenko | Zada | Patron of the Orochi | Medomai | Athreos | Gisela | Trostani | Nin | Silumgar | Kaervek | Jarad | Xenagos | Sydri | Narset | Roon | Zurgo | Ghave | Marath | Uril | Tasigur | Animar | Riku | Riku | Sek'Kuar | Cromat
had they not scooped I'd of been out of it or had the lands to even the board state agian giving everyone a chance again. But its not often, but its super annoying when it happens. So I don't scoop usualy unless I'm low on time.
It's Hip to be a Square
Well whatever goal is, it isn't to win the game. If it's not, then the purpose may seem all good and wholesome to one person, but totally arbitrary and ambiguous to the next. And if the goals are subjective and unclear, you can't have strategy. Without strategy, you have a game that arguably isn't rewarding or fun.
I get that. Perhaps its just my meta, but players tend to do it as a way to help those who are not in control have a chance to win. More like "jump on the grenade". I do find it annoying when I am the one in power, but when someone does it while i'm struggling with my board position, I am grateful. Especially if it leads to game development that would otherwise not be seen.
Currently Piloting:
EDH
BGGlissa, The Traitor - Recursion (Primer)
WBRKaalia of The Vast
URGRiku of Two Reflections
WUBSydri, Galvanic Genius
UBRamirez DePietro
GWKrond, The Dawn-Clad
GWUDerevi, Empyrial Tactician
RGOmnath, Locus of Rage
Modern
UG Infect
Ive had many games which I lost and were fun, winning is not mutually exclusive to having fun. Fun is a a meaning which varies among people and arguing there HAS to be strategy to have a rewarding and fun game is also quite incorrect.
Someone plays , Order of Succession, Chaos Warp Tempt with Immortality[/CARTD], Warp World, or Eye of the Storm there's no strategy involved, but a random series of events that lead to unexpected results *chuckle* just for laughs and giggles. It was fun, it was entertaining and at least no one in my LGS would care who won, it was an awesome game.
If the whole purpose of playing EDH (at least in my LGS) would be TO WIN everyone would have cutthroat T1 decks and I am very glad we dont.
I share your ideology completely.
http://www.mtgsalvation.com/trading-post/details/805-w-underground-sea-h-revised-lands
Having strategy in a game doesn't mean that the whole objective is to win. Strategy is its own purpose. Strategy is fun. Winning is one way to measure whether your strategy is effective and strategizing requires you to have clear game objectives, but there's nothing to say that people who strategize are cutthroat. They just want to play in a game that they can understand.
I, for one, wouldn't show up with a Turn 5, uninteractive combo deck. But if I do put together a pile, it's going to be for the purpose of playing the game that we all came to play, not some perverse social experiment whose rules vary from player to player.
EDH Decks
BGGlissa, the TraitorGB
URTibor and LumiaRU
WUBOloro, Ageless AsceticBUW
UBSygg, River CutthroatBU
RGXenagos, God of RevelsGR
UGVorel of the Hull CladeGU
GBSavra, Queen of the GolgariBG
URGMaelstrom WandererGRU