As others have said, it comes with the territory that people scoop, tactical or otherwise. I tend to give people a lot of leeway if they scoop without a fuss and it doesn't seem spite-fueled, after all RL does get in the way sometimes and it always takes priority.
That said, I really hate when people scoop for other reasons. If you're going to sit down to play the game, then you should finish it without being a petulant poor sport about the outcome.
There are a couple caveats though:
This only applies to multiplayer when more than 2 players are actually alive in the game.
The losing players can agree to concede simultaneously when a game-ending combo or attack phase is happening and nobody has an out.
The reason scooping is fine in duel magic is because it has no real effect. You lose faster, big deal. In multiplayer magic it has many potential effects depending on the board state, regardless of whether it's mid-attack or not. The simple fact that you provide other players with a potential target for their attacks and spells is something that should not change until you've lost.
For the record I've always called it "aggressive scooping" since in a manner of speaking you are "attacking" another player in game by denying them something, usually a trigger but sometimes a resource.
Everyone plays this way in the groups I play with. If there is a player who you can kill in combat and you want to activate your triggers you have to pick between killing them or hitting someone else for your triggers. This creates situations where what would be the obvious course of action isn't necessarily the most beneficial. This decision making rewards players for thinking their moves through and taking everything(including the possibility of a tactical scoop) into account and THIS adds an extra level of depth and strategy to the game.
Here's the thing about the so-called "tactical scoop" - the only time someone uses it is when they've been outplayed by the cards and their opponent's skill, so they have to resort to an unanswerable out of game action to affect the game state.
By all means, if someone's swinging for lethal on you, cast every card in your hand to make his life miserable for doing so. If he doesn't have the means to prevent it, that's his own fault - but the "tactical" scoop is a desperate move by someone that couldn't stop his dying by utilizing the deck he built and feels the need to do something spiteful to seem relevant.
I can't understand this mentality that this option is strictly "spiteful" like people are doing it out of hate. I'm not going to say that there aren't people like that, because there are all kinds of people in this world(I've got a buddy who runs Elixir of Immortality and both eldrazi in all his decks just because he hates mill), but that's not the point of it. The point is that if a player is about to kill you and get triggers or if he is about to benefit greatly from something of yours, you scoop so that he can't. Not to spite him but so that everyone else can keep on playing the game. A prime example; Noticing everyone but Heartless Hidegetsu was tapped out I cast Time Stretch, Hidegetsu cast Wild Ricochet. It was obvious that he would win if it resolved so I scooped with both spells still on the stack. His spell fizzles without a target and the game continues for everyone else. Sure I'm eliminated, but everyone else gets to keep playing the game they're so invested in. There is no spite or malice involved, just good clean fun.
Three man game, me as Teneb, guy in front of me with Riku, and guy to my right with that new Rakdos legend.
The early game was kind of slow for all of us, I made a rather obvious blunder early on that set me back a little, but really we're all kind of trading moves. Towards the end the Riku player casts a Terastadon and rites it. He starts naming targets on both of us, but the Rakdos player just scoops. I actually got kind of pissed because that left me in the lurch when he took out all of my lands. I'd say that was a tactical scoop if I ever saw one.
This is rage scooping, not the same thing. This actually has the opposite effect of tactical scooping. Tactical scoops are usually done so that everyone but the "attacking"player has a better chance of combating the "attacking" player. It has purpose and effects the other players in a positive way. Rage scooping is done purely out of rage. The guy was just pissed so he left. This leaves everyone else in a worse situation because not only do they get hit even harder now but there is one less player to combat the "attacking" player.
My meta ignores the tactical scoop - we only allow actual game actions to affect game states. If someone scoops to void a combat trigger, we just pretend he got attacked then play on without him. We had one guy protest after quitting that it shouldn't be allowed to happen, but we told him right out that since he quit the game, he longer has any input on how the current game plays out, and if we decide to play on, he'll just have to deal with it.
This is quite possibly the rudest thing I have ever heard of someone doing in a game of EDH. Flat out just telling someone that that you don't care what they're saying. Scooping is an actual game action by the way. It's in the rules, and it's something that you can only do if you're yanno part of the game.
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.
No. That is just mean and petty. For the millionth time scooping is an IN GAME action. You can't scoop out of a game you're not part of. You have to be playing the game to scoop out.
The sheer amount of petty trash talk and name calling in this thread is incredibly disheartening. I see many people getting far too upset over this. Calling it "douche-scooping" "scummy" or saying "Real men don't scoop" is incredibly childish. Grow up guys.
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")
I'd just like to state that this particular example doesn't actually work. When you leave the game you take your triggers with you so when your Detention Sphere goes away it doesn't return the Fleshbag Maruader since the trigger doing so is attached to the Detention Sphere and the Detention Sphere is no longer part of the game.
Unfortunately every try hard from Sacramento to Shanghai preaches from the top of their 27 lands + Mana Reflection that Tooth and Nail and Time Stretch are fine to play in the same turn but Armageddon is unfair.
We don't see it very often, but we tell people to plan their plays presuming that if someone could tactically scoop, they will.
Don't base your gameplan on expecting any other player to "help" you win by them staying in the game any longer than is beneficial for them.
When someone makes a crucial play that involves someone else's cards and their involvement, they are usually reminded that that player could just scoop and ruin their plans.
I'll stick by my view:
It is part of the game and it affects decisions, and can even be looked at as an extra level of depth to the game, but I believe it is one that shouldn't be part of the game. It's allowed, I don't tell people they aren't allowed to, and if you do it, so be it, but it still bothers me - only for being a flaw* in the rules.
It's impressive that this topic strikes such a chord with people. I didn't expect the kind of tangents I've read in response. I want to make sure everyone understands my feelings on this, because I feel like a few of the derogatory remarks were actually aimed at me.
I don't support the idea of scooping to hurt another player as a cut and dry tactic. It is not how I would intend to end a game. I do know that every once in a while a terrible boardstate can be avoided by a player who is likely defeated anyway simply not allowing his cards or himself to be used to another's player's advantage.
I'm glad reactions to this vary so greatly. It's exactly what makes this a community. Thank you all for your thoughts, even if a few of you were unable to keep your emotions in check in the process.
The sheer amount of petty trash talk and name calling in this thread is incredibly disheartening. I see many people getting far too upset over this. Calling it "douche-scooping" "scummy" or saying "Real men don't scoop" is incredibly childish. Grow up guys.
Scooping is fine. Scooping when you are about to die just to screw over the targeting player is pretty lame.
I kind of see it as a more passive way of flipping the table. "Don't attack me, because I'll scoop and deny you your combat triggers" is basically taking an out-of-game action (because it literally takes you out of the game) to influence in-game actions, which is pretty lame. It can't be done tactically, because Commander is (in most ways it's played, at least) a FFA game, so the word 'tactically' doesn't apply. How do you tactically do something which means you lose the game?
"Tactical" is meant in the sense that you have some sort of in-game goal behind your leaving. You can scoop anytime and have no reason other than knowing you are not going to win, but scooping after allowing someone to steal your graveyard or field full of creatures, or popping their Mindslaver on you has an actual intention that affects the game (if there are no house-rules involved) you are throwing yoursrelf onto the proverbially grenade. Just because the "tactic" doesnt serve the person performing it doesnt mean it isnt one.
I kind of see it as a more passive way of flipping the table. "Don't attack me, because I'll scoop and deny you your combat triggers" is basically taking an out-of-game action (because it literally takes you out of the game) to influence in-game actions, which is pretty lame. It can't be done tactically, because Commander is (in most ways it's played, at least) a FFA game, so the word 'tactically' doesn't apply. How do you tactically do something which means you lose the game?
I cracked a smile at someone saying that that kind of scooping isn't spiteful but then mentioning that the only thing it does is allows everyone but the target of the scoop to beat that player. That's what spite is, folks.
Spite
1. Malicious ill will prompting an urge to hurt or humiliate.
2. An instance of malicious feeling.
Tactical scooping is done, not out of malice, but in order to leave the other players in a better position comparatively. Comparatively being the keyword here as the action doesn't directly assist them.
Scooping can only be considered "tactical" when it accomplishes one of two things. First is that scooping gives everyone else in the game a better chance at winning. Some people call this king making but that is only the case when the game is down to 3 people since helping everyone else really just becomes helping that one guy. However there are usually more players at the table then 3 so this isn't the case most of the time. Second when the threat of the scoop has influence on the game. This is only differentiated from the first instance in that while you wouldn't necessarily die from whatever action your opponent is taking, you will be put into a position where you can either by killed at any time(in Bolt range so to speak) or you're now so far behind you can't possibly catch up. This prevents ganging up situations where everyone beats up the same guy because he has no blockers and they want their sword triggers. I personally find that behavior to be in poor taste.
Unfortunately every try hard from Sacramento to Shanghai preaches from the top of their 27 lands + Mana Reflection that Tooth and Nail and Time Stretch are fine to play in the same turn but Armageddon is unfair.
Many people seem to be under the impression that this is a "me vs you" issue where one player is out for blood on one other player. This is often not the case, because typically when these cases occur its that one player is about to use another to ruin the table, and instead that player "falls on his sword" to allow the rest of the table another shot at victory. This all depends heavily on the individual gamestates involved, and is not necessarily a case of spite.
Occasionally people scoop at my LGS but it typically takes the form of a concession. Something like:
Me-"Do you have the win?"
Him-"Yeah, it's game on my turn."
Me-"Okay, scoop. Good game, another?"
More rare however is:
Me-"Broken but not game ending spell, does it resolve?"
Table-"Yes."
Battlecruiser-"scoop, I thought we were going to play real magic tonight."
As a rule scooping to deny another player earned triggers is pretty lame and frowned upon by the more mature players at my LGS. It's one of the quicker ways to be politely asked to die first in every FFA we play.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I've got a fever and the only prescription is more Kobolds. 5-color Eggs
If you scoop to me to deny me like its the newest counterspell, I don't think you are man-enough-to-handle-it. That's right, I think even a newborn would have a bigger pair than you... because you want to be scooping just to deny my spell.
When I go play my Animar (Elemental Tribal) or my Maelstrom Wanderer (Taste the Chaos!) decks and someone scoops like that, it really doesn't sit with me well.
I don't have a problem if my opponent scoops though and they are not hindering another persons strategy in the process.
Spite
1. Malicious ill will prompting an urge to hurt or humiliate.
2. An instance of malicious feeling.
Tactical scooping is done, not out of malice, but in order to leave the other players in a better position comparatively. Comparatively being the keyword here as the action doesn't directly assist them.
Scooping can only be considered "tactical" when it accomplishes one of two things. First is that scooping gives everyone else in the game a better chance at winning. Some people call this king making but that is only the case when the game is down to 3 people since helping everyone else really just becomes helping that one guy. However there are usually more players at the table then 3 so this isn't the case most of the time. Second when the threat of the scoop has influence on the game. This is only differentiated from the first instance in that while you wouldn't necessarily die from whatever action your opponent is taking, you will be put into a position where you can either by killed at any time(in Bolt range so to speak) or you're now so far behind you can't possibly catch up. This prevents ganging up situations where everyone beats up the same guy because he has no blockers and they want their sword triggers. I personally find that behavior to be in poor taste.
The problem is that the stated objective of the game is reducing each other player's life total to 0, stacking 10 poison, drawing with an empty library, or winning because a card says you did. The objective of the game is NOT to give everyone else the best chance of winning against the guy you don't like at the time, or to run around willy-nilly affecting the game in ways that don't lead to you winning.
You might as well put up a game with 1hr time limits, draw your first hand, then sit with priority and wait out your whole clock to screw with people. Passing priority is a game action. It has a likelihood of affecting the game, at least if you consider conceding a game action, because it's sure likely to get people to concede. It's just that NONE of those things can be strategized against because the objective of the game isn't to screw with people or force them to concede, it's to reduce life totals to 0 (or another reasonable win condition).
In the Wild Ricochet on Time Stretch example above, sure, you're probably going to lose. Given that, nothing else you do matters for your strategy because you're losing whatever you do. So, every game decision you make after that point is strategically neutral. You could do one thing as well as another, and if you have a marked preference for one, then it's because of considerations that are outside your game strategy. You already lost that game. People who are jumping in and saying, "Of course you concede!" are inventing their own, hidden game objectives. Suddenly somehow, it's your strategic objective to stop the Ricochet player from winning through extra turns, and instead ensure that the other players have a chance to win in some other way. You just arbitrarily give yourself the role of stopping everyone else from winning. Which you may as well do just by sitting there with priority.
I mean, try it sometime. Sit down with your group, stare at some game-ender on the stack, and when the caster asks if it's resolved, just say, "I haven't passed priority yet." There's no judge, so no one is going to call a clock on you. You can just sit there playing a staring contest instead of the game that everyone else sat down to play. Passing priority is a game action, right? Your strategy should just be to not pass priority. It gives you non-zero chance to win because other people could lose the staring contest and concede. Great strategy, right? Apparently so. Apparently punting on the game that everyone agreed to play and instead inventing your own objectives of screwing with people, affecting the game however you can, and raising ruckus are perfectly valid objectives once it's clear that you're not going to win an honest game.
Justice absolutely puts it best. People calling this an "in-game" action are correct in that it's covered by the rules. But there are potential ways to take advantage of the rules, like never passing priority.. This rule, and just about all Magic rules, was designed for a 1v1 tournament setting in which a concession would speed up a match or end an impending loss quicker. It was not made for multiplayer, and anyone capitalizing on this in order to harm a player is taking advantage of a rule that wasn't meant to be used in such a way. Is it legal? Yes. Is it fair? No, it's exploiting a flaw in multiplayer rules. But is it tactical or "douchey"?
A tactic is an action planned to achieve a specific end, meaning that a scoop could be considered a tactic. However, scooping to harm a player or help another player(s) (which indeed harms the remaining player(s)) is an action that (a) Is made with the intention of losing the game, and (b) Cannot be responded to or interacted with, (c) every player can use at any time regardless of skill or efficient deckbuilding, and (d) Promotes removing cards that interact with the group like all Control Magic spells.
Point (a) is the one Justice is making so I'll briefly touch on this. A person who isn't trying to win but also has another goal is a person whose actions I can't predict. Game theory and the rules and goals of Magic state that you play to win. If my opponents aren't playing to win and also intend to achieve their goal that is unknown to me, I might as well be playing tennis with a guy whose goal is to eat the ball. Sure he is employing a tactic, but it is not the point of the game and it won't be fair or fun to insist that I play with this person. I built my deck and play my game thinking that my opponents are trying to win, but if someone plays kingmaker, or blows up the table and scoops, my deck is rightfully unequipped to approach that. Does that make me a bad player? Absolutely not, I'm trying to win under the assumption that my opponents are rational and trying to win.
Point (b) and (c) are the biggest ones because it demonstrates that this is clearly a rule exploitation. Scooping can't be responded to or interacted with, meaning that each player has a secret emblem that when used at the right time says "You lose the game: Target player who would win the game loses instead." It's not fair to empower each player with this ability. If you really wish to concede, it better be because you have to leave and that it impacts the game as little as possible. Even leaving a game sorcery speed impacts the game, because it presents one less target for damage triggers and Bribery effects. As I said in point (d), why would anyone in such a meta ever run a very wide range of cards that either take control of other peoples creatures, search their libraries, animate from their graveyards, etc. You're promoting an ideology that dismisses interaction in such a positive multiplayer way.
I have never had this problem in my group, and I'm very grateful for that. Some people, namely Donald of the primer committee have said that "Hey, that's your meta, this is mine". To each his own, I'm glad you have your way to play that is fun. However, if I'm visiting a city where it's legal to murder people, I'm not just going to join in because that's the way your city does it. Maybe the people of this town don't know any better because that's the way they were raised. They aren't killing out of spite or malice, they think it's normal. The same goes for scooping that negatively affects a player. You aren't doing it with the intent of harming someone because you don't understand that it does in fact hurt players.
Bottom line: Play to win. If you don't, you forfeit interactivity and become unpredictable opponents, and I will not play with you.
Yikes, after an hour and a half I would argue that any win that anyone at the table could achieve will be almost entirely accidental and/or topdecked. Again, there is a lot to be said for the respect you have for your opponents here.
I feel though that its a whole different ballgame if the boardstate is so level after that long. If someone is going to win, I want to see it, but if everyone is still waiting for their magical topdeck victory it might be time to weigh playing it out against playing another game. Losing or winning matters little at that point.
I play a permanent-based control Oona. The game I'm thinking of was a Lazav, rafiq, and a jhiora--so lots of blue. They had actually blown out my insta-win combo, and lazav kept everything in check otherwise, rafiq tried to scoop. F NO !!
I play a permanent-based control Oona. The game I'm thinking of was a Lazav, rafiq, and a jhiora--so lots of blue. They had actually blown out my insta-win combo, and lazav kept everything in check otherwise, rafiq tried to scoop. F NO !!
I see, its unfortunate if you're dealing with someone who folds easily, though ther have been very rare occasions where I've scooped out of boredom. I can't make a play, I'm somehow locked out, or something, I'd rather scoop and streamline everyone's turns than take up space doing nothing. Again these are under extreme circumstances though.
If you want to "tactical scoop" or just scoop in general, fine. Don't get sore when the group doesn't ask you to play again. Scooping is nothing more than sore losing and wasting other player's time. If you are going to sit down and play the game, play it. Play it to win. Don't waste my time or other player's time by effecting the game , then taking your ball and going home when things don't go your way.
If you want to "tactical scoop" or just scoop in general, fine. Don't get sore when the group doesn't ask you to play again. Scooping is nothing more than sore losing and wasting other player's time. If you are going to sit down and play the game, play it. Play it to win. Don't waste my time or other player's time by effecting the game , then taking your ball and going home when things don't go your way.
I think that is a good way to look at the term.
Well, if I need to leave, I'll concede, but I get your point :).
The weird thing is barring something completely unexpected conceding is completely natural in every format this game is played in. Only in edh do some people see it as poor sportsmanship. I don't mind losing I just hate playing a game in which I've already lost for 20 extra minutes so that other players can gain an advantage out of me like some sort of pinata that spews land untaps and life points.
There are definitely a lot of groups of people in this discussion. Some people don't think it's okay to concede ever and that everyone should be forced to play until they are dead. At least socially because you'll be ostracized if you concede with no cards and hand and no permanents because you're a wet blanket.
Edit: I wasn't trying to derail the thread. It doesn't matter anyway because anybody who is set in their opinion about the topic probably isn't going to change their mind.
The weird thing is barring something completely unexpected conceding is completely natural in every format this game is played in. Only in edh do some people see it as poor sportsmanship. I don't mind losing I just hate playing a game in which I've already lost for 20 extra minutes so that other players can gain an advantage out of me like some sort of pinata that spews land untaps and life points.
There are definitely a lot of groups of people in this discussion. Some people don't think it's okay to concede ever and that everyone should be forced to play until they are dead. At least socially because you'll be ostracized if you concede with no cards and hand and no permanents because you're a wet blanket.
Might want to read the thread again
It isn't about conceding; it's about conceding at a very specific time to screw over the person who is attacking you which amounts to kingmaking, the most annoying part of mutliplayer
If you want to "tactical scoop" or just scoop in general, fine. Don't get sore when the group doesn't ask you to play again. Scooping is nothing more than sore losing and wasting other player's time. If you are going to sit down and play the game, play it. Play it to win. Don't waste my time or other player's time by effecting the game , then taking your ball and going home when things don't go your way.
How is conceding when you know you've lost or can no longer win sore losing? I would say making people play it out when they've locked up the game is wasting peoples time. I have some people in my playgroup who are notorious for not conceding ever, even if they have absolutely no chance of winning, and this really frustrates me. There was one game I played where I soft locked the table by recurring and casting Wrath of God every turn and all of the players could pretty much only win by creature damage so they had no chance of ever getting an attack step in. At this point the reasonable thing to do would be to concede, I had enough gas to prevent them from doing anything relevant for the rest of the game so they clearly had no chance of winning at this point. But they made me play it out, so I took two players from 40 to 0 using only Raging Ravine, and they tried to make me feel guilty from locking them out of the game and taking quite a bit to kill them but it was their own fault for not conceding in a clearly lost game.
I think conceding certainly has its place in EDH, there is no reason to make people play out games when the game has reached a certain point that there is already a clear winner. And by conceding, you can shuffle up and get the next game started so you get to play more magic.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
On Mono Black in Commander:
Quote from BlackJack68 »
But whomever your commander is, Cabal Coffers is really in charge.
Is there some unwritten rule I'm not aware of that stipulates that after X amount of pages, posts from new comers to the discussion will fail to recognize what is actually being discussed?
How is conceding when you know you've lost or can no longer win sore losing? I would say making people play it out when they've locked up the game is wasting peoples time. I have some people in my playgroup who are notorious for not conceding ever, even if they have absolutely no chance of winning, and this really frustrates me. There was one game I played where I soft locked the table by recurring and casting Wrath of God every turn and all of the players could pretty much only win by creature damage so they had no chance of ever getting an attack step in. At this point the reasonable thing to do would be to concede, I had enough gas to prevent them from doing anything relevant for the rest of the game so they clearly had no chance of winning at this point. But they made me play it out, so I took two players from 40 to 0 using only Raging Ravine, and they tried to make me feel guilty from locking them out of the game and taking quite a bit to kill them but it was their own fault for not conceding in a clearly lost game.
I think conceding certainly has its place in EDH, there is no reason to make people play out games when the game has reached a certain point that there is already a clear winner. And by conceding, you can shuffle up and get the next game started so you get to play more magic.
That's not what this thread is about. Conceding is fine. Conceding to make someone's spell fizzle or make a sword trigger not happen is what this thread is about.
For example, you have infinite mana, and will win the game by using capsize + infinite mana to bounce everyone's permanents. You target one of my permanents first. I scoop, your capsize fizzles and goes to the graveyard. Your infinite is dead because I scooped.
That's what this thread is about. Scooping to mess up the game for someone (the guy who was about to kill you).
That's not what this thread is about. Conceding is fine. Conceding to make someone's spell fizzle or make a sword trigger not happen is what this thread is about.
For example, you have infinite mana, and will win the game by using capsize + infinite mana to bounce everyone's permanents. You target one of my permanents first. I scoop, your capsize fizzles and goes to the graveyard. Your infinite is dead because I scooped.
That's what this thread is about. Scooping to mess up the game for someone (the guy who was about to kill you).
I know what the thread is about, I was responding to someone who said scooping tactical or otherwise is not ok. Personally, I think conceding in response to someone's action that has an effect on the game outside of you losing is BM. As people pointed out this is essentially like Kingmaking as it can influence the game by preventing an action that is beneficial to a person, thus causing a potential swing in the game. I would considering your example extremely BM, the person has essentially locked everyone out of the game so you should just accept defeat and concede and start a new game.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
On Mono Black in Commander:
Quote from BlackJack68 »
But whomever your commander is, Cabal Coffers is really in charge.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
As others have said, it comes with the territory that people scoop, tactical or otherwise. I tend to give people a lot of leeway if they scoop without a fuss and it doesn't seem spite-fueled, after all RL does get in the way sometimes and it always takes priority.
That said, I really hate when people scoop for other reasons. If you're going to sit down to play the game, then you should finish it without being a petulant poor sport about the outcome.
There are a couple caveats though:
This only applies to multiplayer when more than 2 players are actually alive in the game.
The losing players can agree to concede simultaneously when a game-ending combo or attack phase is happening and nobody has an out.
The reason scooping is fine in duel magic is because it has no real effect. You lose faster, big deal. In multiplayer magic it has many potential effects depending on the board state, regardless of whether it's mid-attack or not. The simple fact that you provide other players with a potential target for their attacks and spells is something that should not change until you've lost.
Everyone plays this way in the groups I play with. If there is a player who you can kill in combat and you want to activate your triggers you have to pick between killing them or hitting someone else for your triggers. This creates situations where what would be the obvious course of action isn't necessarily the most beneficial. This decision making rewards players for thinking their moves through and taking everything(including the possibility of a tactical scoop) into account and THIS adds an extra level of depth and strategy to the game.
I can't understand this mentality that this option is strictly "spiteful" like people are doing it out of hate. I'm not going to say that there aren't people like that, because there are all kinds of people in this world(I've got a buddy who runs Elixir of Immortality and both eldrazi in all his decks just because he hates mill), but that's not the point of it. The point is that if a player is about to kill you and get triggers or if he is about to benefit greatly from something of yours, you scoop so that he can't. Not to spite him but so that everyone else can keep on playing the game. A prime example; Noticing everyone but Heartless Hidegetsu was tapped out I cast Time Stretch, Hidegetsu cast Wild Ricochet. It was obvious that he would win if it resolved so I scooped with both spells still on the stack. His spell fizzles without a target and the game continues for everyone else. Sure I'm eliminated, but everyone else gets to keep playing the game they're so invested in. There is no spite or malice involved, just good clean fun.
This is rage scooping, not the same thing. This actually has the opposite effect of tactical scooping. Tactical scoops are usually done so that everyone but the "attacking"player has a better chance of combating the "attacking" player. It has purpose and effects the other players in a positive way. Rage scooping is done purely out of rage. The guy was just pissed so he left. This leaves everyone else in a worse situation because not only do they get hit even harder now but there is one less player to combat the "attacking" player.
This is quite possibly the rudest thing I have ever heard of someone doing in a game of EDH. Flat out just telling someone that that you don't care what they're saying. Scooping is an actual game action by the way. It's in the rules, and it's something that you can only do if you're yanno part of the game.
No. That is just mean and petty. For the millionth time scooping is an IN GAME action. You can't scoop out of a game you're not part of. You have to be playing the game to scoop out.
The sheer amount of petty trash talk and name calling in this thread is incredibly disheartening. I see many people getting far too upset over this. Calling it "douche-scooping" "scummy" or saying "Real men don't scoop" is incredibly childish. Grow up guys.
I'd just like to state that this particular example doesn't actually work. When you leave the game you take your triggers with you so when your Detention Sphere goes away it doesn't return the Fleshbag Maruader since the trigger doing so is attached to the Detention Sphere and the Detention Sphere is no longer part of the game.
Players can only concede when the stack is empty and it is not combat phase.
I do not sign 5yr+ old cards. Please do not pm me for this.
Don't base your gameplan on expecting any other player to "help" you win by them staying in the game any longer than is beneficial for them.
When someone makes a crucial play that involves someone else's cards and their involvement, they are usually reminded that that player could just scoop and ruin their plans.
It is part of the game and it affects decisions, and can even be looked at as an extra level of depth to the game, but I believe it is one that shouldn't be part of the game. It's allowed, I don't tell people they aren't allowed to, and if you do it, so be it, but it still bothers me - only for being a flaw* in the rules.
*flaw in my eyes at least.
BBB Two Hundred Zombies BBB
Duel Commander
WR Tajic, Wrath of the Manlands RW
BGW Doran Destruction WGB
Commander
GUB Mimeoplasm, Screw Politics BUG
BR Mogis, God of Slaughter RB
RGW Marath, Ramp and Removal WGR
WUBRG Karona, Jank God GRBUW
I don't support the idea of scooping to hurt another player as a cut and dry tactic. It is not how I would intend to end a game. I do know that every once in a while a terrible boardstate can be avoided by a player who is likely defeated anyway simply not allowing his cards or himself to be used to another's player's advantage.
I'm glad reactions to this vary so greatly. It's exactly what makes this a community. Thank you all for your thoughts, even if a few of you were unable to keep your emotions in check in the process.
Scooping is fine. Scooping when you are about to die just to screw over the targeting player is pretty lame.
"Tactical" is meant in the sense that you have some sort of in-game goal behind your leaving. You can scoop anytime and have no reason other than knowing you are not going to win, but scooping after allowing someone to steal your graveyard or field full of creatures, or popping their Mindslaver on you has an actual intention that affects the game (if there are no house-rules involved) you are throwing yoursrelf onto the proverbially grenade. Just because the "tactic" doesnt serve the person performing it doesnt mean it isnt one.
Spite
1. Malicious ill will prompting an urge to hurt or humiliate.
2. An instance of malicious feeling.
Tactical scooping is done, not out of malice, but in order to leave the other players in a better position comparatively. Comparatively being the keyword here as the action doesn't directly assist them.
Scooping can only be considered "tactical" when it accomplishes one of two things. First is that scooping gives everyone else in the game a better chance at winning. Some people call this king making but that is only the case when the game is down to 3 people since helping everyone else really just becomes helping that one guy. However there are usually more players at the table then 3 so this isn't the case most of the time. Second when the threat of the scoop has influence on the game. This is only differentiated from the first instance in that while you wouldn't necessarily die from whatever action your opponent is taking, you will be put into a position where you can either by killed at any time(in Bolt range so to speak) or you're now so far behind you can't possibly catch up. This prevents ganging up situations where everyone beats up the same guy because he has no blockers and they want their sword triggers. I personally find that behavior to be in poor taste.
Me-"Do you have the win?"
Him-"Yeah, it's game on my turn."
Me-"Okay, scoop. Good game, another?"
More rare however is:
Me-"Broken but not game ending spell, does it resolve?"
Table-"Yes."
Battlecruiser-"scoop, I thought we were going to play real magic tonight."
As a rule scooping to deny another player earned triggers is pretty lame and frowned upon by the more mature players at my LGS. It's one of the quicker ways to be politely asked to die first in every FFA we play.
5-color Eggs
WSoul SistersW
Commander
WIsperia the InscrutableU
WGaddock TeegG
UTomorrow, Azami's FamiliarU
Archester
Custom Cube
When I go play my Animar (Elemental Tribal) or my Maelstrom Wanderer (Taste the Chaos!) decks and someone scoops like that, it really doesn't sit with me well.
I don't have a problem if my opponent scoops though and they are not hindering another persons strategy in the process.
The problem is that the stated objective of the game is reducing each other player's life total to 0, stacking 10 poison, drawing with an empty library, or winning because a card says you did. The objective of the game is NOT to give everyone else the best chance of winning against the guy you don't like at the time, or to run around willy-nilly affecting the game in ways that don't lead to you winning.
You might as well put up a game with 1hr time limits, draw your first hand, then sit with priority and wait out your whole clock to screw with people. Passing priority is a game action. It has a likelihood of affecting the game, at least if you consider conceding a game action, because it's sure likely to get people to concede. It's just that NONE of those things can be strategized against because the objective of the game isn't to screw with people or force them to concede, it's to reduce life totals to 0 (or another reasonable win condition).
In the Wild Ricochet on Time Stretch example above, sure, you're probably going to lose. Given that, nothing else you do matters for your strategy because you're losing whatever you do. So, every game decision you make after that point is strategically neutral. You could do one thing as well as another, and if you have a marked preference for one, then it's because of considerations that are outside your game strategy. You already lost that game. People who are jumping in and saying, "Of course you concede!" are inventing their own, hidden game objectives. Suddenly somehow, it's your strategic objective to stop the Ricochet player from winning through extra turns, and instead ensure that the other players have a chance to win in some other way. You just arbitrarily give yourself the role of stopping everyone else from winning. Which you may as well do just by sitting there with priority.
I mean, try it sometime. Sit down with your group, stare at some game-ender on the stack, and when the caster asks if it's resolved, just say, "I haven't passed priority yet." There's no judge, so no one is going to call a clock on you. You can just sit there playing a staring contest instead of the game that everyone else sat down to play. Passing priority is a game action, right? Your strategy should just be to not pass priority. It gives you non-zero chance to win because other people could lose the staring contest and concede. Great strategy, right? Apparently so. Apparently punting on the game that everyone agreed to play and instead inventing your own objectives of screwing with people, affecting the game however you can, and raising ruckus are perfectly valid objectives once it's clear that you're not going to win an honest game.
A tactic is an action planned to achieve a specific end, meaning that a scoop could be considered a tactic. However, scooping to harm a player or help another player(s) (which indeed harms the remaining player(s)) is an action that (a) Is made with the intention of losing the game, and (b) Cannot be responded to or interacted with, (c) every player can use at any time regardless of skill or efficient deckbuilding, and (d) Promotes removing cards that interact with the group like all Control Magic spells.
Point (a) is the one Justice is making so I'll briefly touch on this. A person who isn't trying to win but also has another goal is a person whose actions I can't predict. Game theory and the rules and goals of Magic state that you play to win. If my opponents aren't playing to win and also intend to achieve their goal that is unknown to me, I might as well be playing tennis with a guy whose goal is to eat the ball. Sure he is employing a tactic, but it is not the point of the game and it won't be fair or fun to insist that I play with this person. I built my deck and play my game thinking that my opponents are trying to win, but if someone plays kingmaker, or blows up the table and scoops, my deck is rightfully unequipped to approach that. Does that make me a bad player? Absolutely not, I'm trying to win under the assumption that my opponents are rational and trying to win.
Point (b) and (c) are the biggest ones because it demonstrates that this is clearly a rule exploitation. Scooping can't be responded to or interacted with, meaning that each player has a secret emblem that when used at the right time says "You lose the game: Target player who would win the game loses instead." It's not fair to empower each player with this ability. If you really wish to concede, it better be because you have to leave and that it impacts the game as little as possible. Even leaving a game sorcery speed impacts the game, because it presents one less target for damage triggers and Bribery effects. As I said in point (d), why would anyone in such a meta ever run a very wide range of cards that either take control of other peoples creatures, search their libraries, animate from their graveyards, etc. You're promoting an ideology that dismisses interaction in such a positive multiplayer way.
I have never had this problem in my group, and I'm very grateful for that. Some people, namely Donald of the primer committee have said that "Hey, that's your meta, this is mine". To each his own, I'm glad you have your way to play that is fun. However, if I'm visiting a city where it's legal to murder people, I'm not just going to join in because that's the way your city does it. Maybe the people of this town don't know any better because that's the way they were raised. They aren't killing out of spite or malice, they think it's normal. The same goes for scooping that negatively affects a player. You aren't doing it with the intent of harming someone because you don't understand that it does in fact hurt players.
Bottom line: Play to win. If you don't, you forfeit interactivity and become unpredictable opponents, and I will not play with you.
Sharuum | Damia | Hermit Druid
I play a permanent-based control Oona. The game I'm thinking of was a Lazav, rafiq, and a jhiora--so lots of blue. They had actually blown out my insta-win combo, and lazav kept everything in check otherwise, rafiq tried to scoop. F NO !!
I see, its unfortunate if you're dealing with someone who folds easily, though ther have been very rare occasions where I've scooped out of boredom. I can't make a play, I'm somehow locked out, or something, I'd rather scoop and streamline everyone's turns than take up space doing nothing. Again these are under extreme circumstances though.
I think that is a good way to look at the term.
Well, if I need to leave, I'll concede, but I get your point :).
There are definitely a lot of groups of people in this discussion. Some people don't think it's okay to concede ever and that everyone should be forced to play until they are dead. At least socially because you'll be ostracized if you concede with no cards and hand and no permanents because you're a wet blanket.
Edit: I wasn't trying to derail the thread. It doesn't matter anyway because anybody who is set in their opinion about the topic probably isn't going to change their mind.
Might want to read the thread again
It isn't about conceding; it's about conceding at a very specific time to screw over the person who is attacking you which amounts to kingmaking, the most annoying part of mutliplayer
How is conceding when you know you've lost or can no longer win sore losing? I would say making people play it out when they've locked up the game is wasting peoples time. I have some people in my playgroup who are notorious for not conceding ever, even if they have absolutely no chance of winning, and this really frustrates me. There was one game I played where I soft locked the table by recurring and casting Wrath of God every turn and all of the players could pretty much only win by creature damage so they had no chance of ever getting an attack step in. At this point the reasonable thing to do would be to concede, I had enough gas to prevent them from doing anything relevant for the rest of the game so they clearly had no chance of winning at this point. But they made me play it out, so I took two players from 40 to 0 using only Raging Ravine, and they tried to make me feel guilty from locking them out of the game and taking quite a bit to kill them but it was their own fault for not conceding in a clearly lost game.
I think conceding certainly has its place in EDH, there is no reason to make people play out games when the game has reached a certain point that there is already a clear winner. And by conceding, you can shuffle up and get the next game started so you get to play more magic.
The issue at hand isn't "is conceding ok"
Is there some unwritten rule I'm not aware of that stipulates that after X amount of pages, posts from new comers to the discussion will fail to recognize what is actually being discussed?
That's not what this thread is about. Conceding is fine. Conceding to make someone's spell fizzle or make a sword trigger not happen is what this thread is about.
For example, you have infinite mana, and will win the game by using capsize + infinite mana to bounce everyone's permanents. You target one of my permanents first. I scoop, your capsize fizzles and goes to the graveyard. Your infinite is dead because I scooped.
That's what this thread is about. Scooping to mess up the game for someone (the guy who was about to kill you).
BBB Two Hundred Zombies BBB
Duel Commander
WR Tajic, Wrath of the Manlands RW
BGW Doran Destruction WGB
Commander
GUB Mimeoplasm, Screw Politics BUG
BR Mogis, God of Slaughter RB
RGW Marath, Ramp and Removal WGR
WUBRG Karona, Jank God GRBUW
I know what the thread is about, I was responding to someone who said scooping tactical or otherwise is not ok. Personally, I think conceding in response to someone's action that has an effect on the game outside of you losing is BM. As people pointed out this is essentially like Kingmaking as it can influence the game by preventing an action that is beneficial to a person, thus causing a potential swing in the game. I would considering your example extremely BM, the person has essentially locked everyone out of the game so you should just accept defeat and concede and start a new game.