don't scoop, but make sure you do some damage with your final dying wish. for example, today i was playing a game when someone got out kaervek. they were going to win, i knew i had no chance to. but i did have my gruul ragebeast so i sacrificed myself to kill kaervek. afterward the kaervek player didnt have him as a crutch and lost to the other players left at the table.
I mean, once I had a guy upset at me because I killed a vanilla he'd cast Polymorph on. Maybe, maybe that doesn't make any sense. But stealing my stuff and me killing that stuff before your VooDoo magic can take it over? Even from a flavor perspective that makes sense.
To come up with a flavorful explanation for the rules of auto-scoop, you'd have to resort to some sci-fi alternate dimensions riff.
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.
Before you throw "Strategy" around and give it your own personal meaning let me get this straight.
strat·e·gy noun \-jē\
: a careful plan or method for achieving a particular goal usually over a long period of time
: the skill of making or carrying out plans to achieve a goal
We are all playing magic, the same games under the same rules, if I decide to scoop or not its within the game rules, being a douche or not its something outside the rulebook and if I build a deck to troll everyone by playing Reanimate and Iona, Shield of Emeria or Kaalia, the Vast and Armageddon, I am doing what my deck is intended to do so my strategy is fun, right?
Wether I like to do that or combo Kamalh, Fist of Krosa and Warp World its all within the rules and no one is bending them and everyone is playing the game we all came to play.
But if by scooping and stoping a Sharuum player from insta-killing everyone I am the mastermind behind a sadistic twisted social experiment from hell, I am by all means.
don't scoop, but make sure you do some damage with your final dying wish. for example, today i was playing a game when someone got out kaervek. they were going to win, i knew i had no chance to. but i did have my gruul ragebeast so i sacrificed myself to kill kaervek. afterward the kaervek player didnt have him as a crutch and lost to the other players left at the table.
TL;DR if im going out, im taking you with me.
Ive seen and done that, not because of rage, but because I want to see the world burn.
Not sure how to read the above. I'm not making an argument on definition. I think we agree on the definition of strategy, besides.
What I'm trying to say is that, according to your definition and mine, strategy needs clear goals. The problem is when the goals are something different than the game sets them up to be. The game sets up the goal to be winning by various means. If people take some action in losing to affect the game, forego the goal of winning that the game set up, and do what they do to achieve some unclear objective, then that is quite outside the goals of the game. It's therefore outside the game's strategy, can't be gamed against effectively, and leads to frustration and un-fun.
To come up with a flavorful explanation for the rules of auto-scoop, you'd have to resort to some sci-fi alternate dimensions riff.
You don't need to resort to that, and I can give you a number of reasons why you might flavourfully scoop, but I wasn't aware that we needed a flavour justification for our plays in a game of Magic.
You don't need to resort to that, and I can give you a number of reasons why you might flavourfully scoop, but I wasn't aware that we needed a flavour justification for our plays in a game of Magic.
Well, you made the comparison to countering a Control Magic with Goblin Bombardment but didn't analyze that comparison, so you'll forgive me if I give you credit for a comparision you didn't want to make.
Ostensibly what you're arguing though is that auto-scooping isn't outside the game strategy because effects get countered in-game all the time, and stuff gets countered if its target dies. What I said is that the master of some creature killing it makes sense in the same universe, but a player being attacked suddenly disappearing is on an entirely different level of abstraction. In short, there's no real comparison, whatever it is.
Why is scooping "outside the game?" It is something I can do while playing the game, it has a place in the rule book, they even used it once as a puzzle in Duels of the Planeswalkers.
Not sure how to read the above. I'm not making an argument on definition. I think we agree on the definition of strategy, besides.
What I'm trying to say is that, according to your definition and mine, strategy needs clear goals. The problem is when the goals are something different than the game sets them up to be. The game sets up the goal to be winning by various means. If people take some action in losing to affect the game, forego the goal of winning that the game set up, and do what they do to achieve some unclear objective, then that is quite outside the goals of the game. It's therefore outside the game's strategy, can't be gamed against effectively, and leads to frustration and un-fun.
The game's objective only needs 1 winner, it doesn't care how many have to lose in the way. If my actions (as a loser) can affect who the winner is they are by all means inside the games rules. If I cant be the winner (like someone else mentioned before me) I'll do whatever is possible to stop that person from winning because its the last thing I could do to change the outcome of the game (which I am losing anyway).
EDH is to be taken as a casual format and thats why I highly prefer something like this
And so far 3 out of the 3 stores Ive played follow some kind of point system because even if you win or lose, all what actually lead to the final outcome is whats important. (at least for the LGS I've tried) Fun and rewarding, even if you end up losing.
Why is scooping "outside the game?" It is something I can do while playing the game, it has a place in the rule book, they even used it once as a puzzle in Duels of the Planeswalkers.
It's not outside the game, it's outside the game's strategy. Strategy needs a clear goal, and game theory has players strategizing against other players trying to achieve those goals. When someone takes an action that's clearly against the game's stated goal that nevertheless affects the game, then that decision can only be motivated by some objective outside the game (rage, spite, collusion, what have you), and then it becomes impossible for other players to strategize against that.
The game's objective only needs 1 winner, it doesn't care how many have to lose in the way. If my actions (as a loser) can affect who the winner is they are by all means inside the games rules. If I cant be the winner (like someone else mentioned before me) I'll do whatever is possible to stop that person from winning because its the last thing I could do to change the outcome of the game (which I am losing anyway).
EDH is to be taken as a casual format and thats why I highly prefer something like this
And so far 3 out of the 3 stores Ive played follow some kind of point system because even if you win or lose, all what actually lead to the final outcome is whats important. (at least for the LGS I've tried) Fun and rewarding, even if you end up losing.
Again, taking action because it "can affect who the winner is" isn't at all within the game's stated objective of you being the winner. If it's clear you're not going to win, whatever else you do is strategically neutral at that point. But instead of doing nothing, some outside the game force has you doing something to spite some other player.
Considerations outside the game actually pose a pretty big problem to Game Theory. Rather than me explaining it over and over, read this:
Why is scooping "outside the game?" It is something I can do while playing the game, it has a place in the rule book, they even used it once as a puzzle in Duels of the Planeswalkers.
Which was also in a format not called EDH/Commander giving the comparison no relevance to a social, multiplayer format. In the end it is a meta call. My meta tends to frown upon it, go with whatever yours does.
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 disagree. Scooping is clearly defined in the rules as an action that you can take at any time during the game. When I play a game of Magic, I use the rules to my advantage in order to try and win the game. If player A is at 4 life and dead to a Chandra Ablaze activation from player C, he should realize that he's not going to be gaining life if he attacks me (player B), and thus he'll lose the game. It's a rattlesnake advantage that I'll use to my advantage.
Of course, if we're not playing for prizes, and me not scooping will end the game quicker, I may not scoop to guarantee another player's win. In the same way I'm determining the winner; I'm just assuring the person who kills me's victory, instead of letting the game progress further.
Just because "I would have won if 'player X' didn't scoop", it doesn't mean I should have won. Risking him scooping was a chance I took in order to knock player X out.
The second issue you described (with the "taking back" of a deck) is one of social etiquette, not game rules. If a player lends me a deck, I assume that that player is lending me that deck as a friend and in good faith. If that friend is petty enough to "steal" my deck back from me, then perhaps there is a bigger issue here than the rules of Magic. And yes, this is exactly why I wouldn't borrow a deck from a random stranger.
It's not outside the game, it's outside the game's strategy.
So is what color of sleeve you choose. I don't see why it's a problem, even after reading your link. Not everyone in a game acts perfectly rational. This is a problem when it comes to modeling player behaviour, but it poses no problem to playing the game.
But if you want a real, strategic reason to scoop in response to a player killing you, Magic games are iterative
But if you want a real, strategic reason to scoop in response to a player killing you, Magic games are iterative
Also, in cases where attempting to kill a player who scoops will cause you to lose upon that player's scoop (such as failing to gain crucial lifelink), it becomes a case of mutually assured destruction (MAD). In which case, it becomes both players' best interests not to deal (in favor of the player to be killed).
I disagree. Scooping is clearly defined in the rules as an action that you can take at any time during the game. When I play a game of Magic, I use the rules to my advantage in order to try and win the game. If player A is at 4 life and dead to a Chandra Ablaze activation from player C, he should realize that he's not going to be gaining life if he attacks me (player B), and thus he'll lose the game. It's a rattlesnake advantage that I'll use to my advantage.
Of course, if we're not playing for prizes, and me not scooping will end the game quicker, I may not scoop to guarantee another player's win. In the same way I'm determining the winner; I'm just assuring the person who kills me's victory, instead of letting the game progress further.
Just because "I would have won if 'player X' didn't scoop", it doesn't mean I should have won. Risking him scooping was a chance I took in order to knock player X out.
The second issue you described (with the "taking back" of a deck) is one of social etiquette, not game rules. If a player lends me a deck, I assume that that player is lending me that deck as a friend and in good faith. If that friend is petty enough to "steal" my deck back from me, then perhaps there is a bigger issue here than the rules of Magic. And yes, this is exactly why I wouldn't borrow a deck from a random stranger.
Actually, using the threat of a concession to politic and deter an attack is strategically valid, but given your opponent's dominant strategy in that game, it still relies on something outside the game - politics. Politics are only going to be effective over the course of many games. If you threaten to concede if attacked in that one game, your opponent may attack you anyway if strategy in that game indicates, then all you can do is scoop. That's a strategic failure for you in that game (or neutral if you were dead anyway), and the only value in doing that is establishing a political reputation for use in future games. That goes for Magic games being iterative as well. The objective isn't to win a series of games, it's to win that game.
So if the objective of that one game is to win that game, you're always, always neutral or failing by scooping. But if it's to win future games, then it's fine. That makes it still impossible to game against, which is understandably unfun.
Again, taking action because it "can affect who the winner is" isn't at all within the game's stated objective of you being the winner. If it's clear you're not going to win, whatever else you do is strategically neutral at that point. But instead of doing nothing, some outside the game force has you doing something to spite some other player.
Its a legal action/decision/force INSIDE the game, covered by the rules themselves. If the objective of me playing the game (wining it) becomes unachievable my next course of action would be to take measures to affect the current state of it, not in regards of spite or malice, but because that specific action is the only thing that could alter the current course of the game, which I am going to be leave anyway. I rather do something and alter than do nothing and say "gg". If you play any other table board that requires strategy (and the objective is to win it) and you are about to lose you'll do a last move to cause whatever possible change in the board state whatsoever.
Also, in cases where attempting to kill a player who scoops will cause you to lose upon that player's scoop (such as failing to gain crucial lifelink), it becomes a case of mutually assured destruction (MAD). In which case, it becomes both players' best interests not to deal (in favor of the player to be killed).
Those are in-game effects, i.e., something that utilizes the abilities of those specific cards. If I run Goblin Bombardment, you'd be smart to target someone else's stuff with Control Magic. Otherwise, I make you waste your Control Magic. Cards do specific things, and how those things interact is pretty much what the game is about.
Scooping because you're losing is pretty much 100% the opposite of that, since it doesn't utilize the cards the scooper is playing in any manner.
There's a guy who'se pretty active around my lgs. He's a hardcore pro-durdle edh player, and I've never seen him lose a game. This isn't because he's any good, it's that he scoops as soon as anyone does anything. It pisses me off. One game he was playing kaalia, I was playing bolas. he played kaalia turn 3 and attacked turn 4, putting out a fatty. I had been playing card daw and tutors the whole time, so when he passed, I played a sweeper. He scooped. The game wasn't even near over yet.
Its a legal action/decision/force INSIDE the game, covered by the rules themselves. If the objective of me playing the game (wining it) becomes unachievable my next course of action would be to take measures to affect the current state of it, not in regards of spite or malice, but because that specific action is the only thing that could alter the current course of the game, which I am going to be leave anyway. I rather do something and alter than do nothing and say "gg". If you play any other table board that requires strategy (and the objective is to win it) and you are about to lose you'll do a last move to cause whatever possible change in the board state whatsoever.
This is getting willfully repetitive.
If winning becomes unachievable, then the objective of the game doesn't suddenly become screwing with people. You either sat down to win, or you sat down to screw with people, or both. But if you sat down to win rather than to screw with people, then you wouldn't be jumping at the opportunity to screw with people.
So you sat down with the idea that you were going to win, but if not, that you were going to screw with whoever you could screw with. Just say it.
TL;DR if im going out, im taking you with me.
Honestly?
I mean, once I had a guy upset at me because I killed a vanilla he'd cast Polymorph on. Maybe, maybe that doesn't make any sense. But stealing my stuff and me killing that stuff before your VooDoo magic can take it over? Even from a flavor perspective that makes sense.
To come up with a flavorful explanation for the rules of auto-scoop, you'd have to resort to some sci-fi alternate dimensions riff.
Before you throw "Strategy" around and give it your own personal meaning let me get this straight.
strat·e·gy noun \-jē\
: a careful plan or method for achieving a particular goal usually over a long period of time
: the skill of making or carrying out plans to achieve a goal
We are all playing magic, the same games under the same rules, if I decide to scoop or not its within the game rules, being a douche or not its something outside the rulebook and if I build a deck to troll everyone by playing
Reanimate and Iona, Shield of Emeria or Kaalia, the Vast and Armageddon, I am doing what my deck is intended to do so my strategy is fun, right?
Wether I like to do that or combo Kamalh, Fist of Krosa and Warp World its all within the rules and no one is bending them and everyone is playing the game we all came to play.
But if by scooping and stoping a Sharuum player from insta-killing everyone I am the mastermind behind a sadistic twisted social experiment from hell, I am by all means.
http://www.mtgsalvation.com/trading-post/details/805-w-underground-sea-h-revised-lands
Ive seen and done that, not because of rage, but because I want to see the world burn.
http://www.mtgsalvation.com/trading-post/details/805-w-underground-sea-h-revised-lands
What I'm trying to say is that, according to your definition and mine, strategy needs clear goals. The problem is when the goals are something different than the game sets them up to be. The game sets up the goal to be winning by various means. If people take some action in losing to affect the game, forego the goal of winning that the game set up, and do what they do to achieve some unclear objective, then that is quite outside the goals of the game. It's therefore outside the game's strategy, can't be gamed against effectively, and leads to frustration and un-fun.
Thanks Argentleman;)
WB Teysa token aggroBW (retired)
MAKING (Onmath, Numot, maybe something in Esper)
Well, you made the comparison to countering a Control Magic with Goblin Bombardment but didn't analyze that comparison, so you'll forgive me if I give you credit for a comparision you didn't want to make.
Ostensibly what you're arguing though is that auto-scooping isn't outside the game strategy because effects get countered in-game all the time, and stuff gets countered if its target dies. What I said is that the master of some creature killing it makes sense in the same universe, but a player being attacked suddenly disappearing is on an entirely different level of abstraction. In short, there's no real comparison, whatever it is.
The game's objective only needs 1 winner, it doesn't care how many have to lose in the way. If my actions (as a loser) can affect who the winner is they are by all means inside the games rules. If I cant be the winner (like someone else mentioned before me) I'll do whatever is possible to stop that person from winning because its the last thing I could do to change the outcome of the game (which I am losing anyway).
EDH is to be taken as a casual format and thats why I highly prefer something like this
http://armadagames.com/forums/showthread.php?33-Commander-(EDH)-League-Points-List
And so far 3 out of the 3 stores Ive played follow some kind of point system because even if you win or lose, all what actually lead to the final outcome is whats important. (at least for the LGS I've tried) Fun and rewarding, even if you end up losing.
http://www.mtgsalvation.com/trading-post/details/805-w-underground-sea-h-revised-lands
It's not outside the game, it's outside the game's strategy. Strategy needs a clear goal, and game theory has players strategizing against other players trying to achieve those goals. When someone takes an action that's clearly against the game's stated goal that nevertheless affects the game, then that decision can only be motivated by some objective outside the game (rage, spite, collusion, what have you), and then it becomes impossible for other players to strategize against that.
Again, taking action because it "can affect who the winner is" isn't at all within the game's stated objective of you being the winner. If it's clear you're not going to win, whatever else you do is strategically neutral at that point. But instead of doing nothing, some outside the game force has you doing something to spite some other player.
Considerations outside the game actually pose a pretty big problem to Game Theory. Rather than me explaining it over and over, read this:
http://science.howstuffworks.com/game-theory7.htm
Which was also in a format not called EDH/Commander giving the comparison no relevance to a social, multiplayer format. In the end it is a meta call. My meta tends to frown upon it, go with whatever yours does.
I disagree. Scooping is clearly defined in the rules as an action that you can take at any time during the game. When I play a game of Magic, I use the rules to my advantage in order to try and win the game. If player A is at 4 life and dead to a Chandra Ablaze activation from player C, he should realize that he's not going to be gaining life if he attacks me (player B), and thus he'll lose the game. It's a rattlesnake advantage that I'll use to my advantage.
Of course, if we're not playing for prizes, and me not scooping will end the game quicker, I may not scoop to guarantee another player's win. In the same way I'm determining the winner; I'm just assuring the person who kills me's victory, instead of letting the game progress further.
Just because "I would have won if 'player X' didn't scoop", it doesn't mean I should have won. Risking him scooping was a chance I took in order to knock player X out.
The second issue you described (with the "taking back" of a deck) is one of social etiquette, not game rules. If a player lends me a deck, I assume that that player is lending me that deck as a friend and in good faith. If that friend is petty enough to "steal" my deck back from me, then perhaps there is a bigger issue here than the rules of Magic. And yes, this is exactly why I wouldn't borrow a deck from a random stranger.
GX Tron XG
UR Phoenix RU
GG Freyalise High Tide GG
UR Parun Counterspells RU
BB Yawgmoth Token Storm BB
WB Pestilence BW
But if you want a real, strategic reason to scoop in response to a player killing you, Magic games are iterative
Also, in cases where attempting to kill a player who scoops will cause you to lose upon that player's scoop (such as failing to gain crucial lifelink), it becomes a case of mutually assured destruction (MAD). In which case, it becomes both players' best interests not to deal (in favor of the player to be killed).
GX Tron XG
UR Phoenix RU
GG Freyalise High Tide GG
UR Parun Counterspells RU
BB Yawgmoth Token Storm BB
WB Pestilence BW
Actually, using the threat of a concession to politic and deter an attack is strategically valid, but given your opponent's dominant strategy in that game, it still relies on something outside the game - politics. Politics are only going to be effective over the course of many games. If you threaten to concede if attacked in that one game, your opponent may attack you anyway if strategy in that game indicates, then all you can do is scoop. That's a strategic failure for you in that game (or neutral if you were dead anyway), and the only value in doing that is establishing a political reputation for use in future games. That goes for Magic games being iterative as well. The objective isn't to win a series of games, it's to win that game.
So if the objective of that one game is to win that game, you're always, always neutral or failing by scooping. But if it's to win future games, then it's fine. That makes it still impossible to game against, which is understandably unfun.
Its a legal action/decision/force INSIDE the game, covered by the rules themselves. If the objective of me playing the game (wining it) becomes unachievable my next course of action would be to take measures to affect the current state of it, not in regards of spite or malice, but because that specific action is the only thing that could alter the current course of the game, which I am going to be leave anyway. I rather do something and alter than do nothing and say "gg". If you play any other table board that requires strategy (and the objective is to win it) and you are about to lose you'll do a last move to cause whatever possible change in the board state whatsoever.
Thats why I love/hate Risk, politics.
http://www.mtgsalvation.com/trading-post/details/805-w-underground-sea-h-revised-lands
Those are in-game effects, i.e., something that utilizes the abilities of those specific cards. If I run Goblin Bombardment, you'd be smart to target someone else's stuff with Control Magic. Otherwise, I make you waste your Control Magic. Cards do specific things, and how those things interact is pretty much what the game is about.
Scooping because you're losing is pretty much 100% the opposite of that, since it doesn't utilize the cards the scooper is playing in any manner.
Oh really?
Three player game. with :-/:mad::rolleyes:
Gets targeted by with a 50 point drain life, so he can survive next attack and win.
You, :-/, scoop when he declares you the target of the 50 point drain life.
:rolleyes:' Spell fizzles, and proceeds to win, because scooped.
If this doesnt make it clear, then i really dont know what will.
Best use of :-/:mad::rolleyes: by far
Does this sound talking about drugs to anyone else?
"I don't do it myself... But my friends do."
It's Hip to be a Square
Even then, I won't do it during a phase where I know it will have repercussions for other players who wish to remain in the game.
This is getting willfully repetitive.
If winning becomes unachievable, then the objective of the game doesn't suddenly become screwing with people. You either sat down to win, or you sat down to screw with people, or both. But if you sat down to win rather than to screw with people, then you wouldn't be jumping at the opportunity to screw with people.
So you sat down with the idea that you were going to win, but if not, that you were going to screw with whoever you could screw with. Just say it.