You can dress it up by calling it "tactical," but scooping to deny value is scummy, and no amount of flowery language will ever convince me that it's a noble act. If a player casts a game-winning Insurrection and you can't stop it in-game, then that player earned the win. Shuffle up and start a new game. Like adults.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Can you name all of the creature types with at least 20 cards? Try my Sporcle Quiz! Last Updated: 6/29/20 (Core Set 2021).
I think threads like this are great arguments for building less interactive decks. Who wants a big Commander-like win by stealing all the creatures on the board and turning them back on their owners when they'll just invalidate you anyway. Build early turn combo decks so that tactical scoopers can only speed up your inevitability. I suppose I'm mostly just amazed that this topic even has two sides.
You can dress it up by calling it "tactical," but scooping to deny value is scummy, and no amount of flowery language will ever convince me that it's a noble act. If a player casts a game-winning Insurrection and you can't stop it in-game, then that player earned the win. Shuffle up and start a new game. Like adults.
Or, if the majority of people at the table want you to scoop so the game doesn't end, you scoop, like an emotionally developed individual who cares about the meta-politics of the table. Though, admittedly, that's an impressively tall order for a lot of players.
I think threads like this are great arguments for building less interactive decks. Who wants a big Commander-like win by stealing all the creatures on the board and turning them back on their owners when they'll just invalidate you anyway. Build early turn combo decks so that tactical scoopers can only speed up your inevitability. I suppose I'm mostly just amazed that this topic even has two sides.
Comes down to the playgroup in question again, doesn't it? It seems like spite scooping is more likely or common among particularly cutthroat groups, where denying a trigger could actually decide a game, so early game combo decks might not even be unwelcome. Such decks don't tend to earn you many friends though, but that's probably not your priority. It's pretty clear that this is an uncommon practice though, so it's mostly in the hypothetical.
I think it's fair, especially if someone actually has to leave. But even if not, it's fine if people wanna concede. If people only concede out of spite however, I think they should change their attitude. Let the winning player have their moment to go off, and they will most likely let you have your moment. It's more fun that way and you can get some crazy memorable plays that way.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
EDH BUG Sidisi, Brood Tyrant Sultai Good Stuff GWU Derevi, Kind Tactician (no stax) UBR Jeleva, Nephalia's Spellslinger URG Animorph Sneakster BR Mogis Hates Everyone BG Hapatra and the Sneks R Zada, Jankstorm
You can dress it up by calling it "tactical," but scooping to deny value is scummy, and no amount of flowery language will ever convince me that it's a noble act. If a player casts a game-winning Insurrection and you can't stop it in-game, then that player earned the win. Shuffle up and start a new game. Like adults.
Or, if the majority of people at the table want you to scoop so the game doesn't end, you scoop, like an emotionally developed individual who cares about the meta-politics of the table. Though, admittedly, that's an impressively tall order for a lot of players.
It's a tall order because it's absurd. Scooping to deny someone a win that they rightfully earned is bad form, to put it mildly. Why even play at all if you're so willing to change the outcome by ceasing to participate? Are you playing with children, or people whose egos are so fragile that they'd be shattered by losing fair and square? Why do you have to manage other players' feelings?
For our recurring example, Insurrection is an 8-mana spell that needs a certain board state to close a game out, and if someone engineers it, they deserve the win and their effort shouldn't be invalidated by someone taking their ball and going home. What you're talking about isn't meta-politics. No, what you're talking about is kowtowing to whiners with thin skin so you can indulge your self-image of the selfless, fun-preserving martyr of your playgroup. It's all about you, not them.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Can you name all of the creature types with at least 20 cards? Try my Sporcle Quiz! Last Updated: 6/29/20 (Core Set 2021).
You can dress it up by calling it "tactical," but scooping to deny value is scummy, and no amount of flowery language will ever convince me that it's a noble act. If a player casts a game-winning Insurrection and you can't stop it in-game, then that player earned the win. Shuffle up and start a new game. Like adults.
Or, if the majority of people at the table want you to scoop so the game doesn't end, you scoop, like an emotionally developed individual who cares about the meta-politics of the table. Though, admittedly, that's an impressively tall order for a lot of players.
It's a tall order because it's absurd. Scooping to deny someone a win that they rightfully earned is bad form, to put it mildly. Why even play at all if you're so willing to change the outcome by ceasing to participate? Are you playing with children, or people whose egos are so fragile that they'd be shattered by losing fair and square? Why do you have to manage other players' feelings?
For our recurring example, Insurrection is an 8-mana spell that needs a certain board state to close a game out, and if someone engineers it, they deserve the win and their effort shouldn't be invalidated by someone taking their ball and going home. What you're talking about isn't meta-politics. No, what you're talking about is kowtowing to whiners with thin skin so you can indulge your self-image of the selfless, fun-preserving martyr of your playgroup. It's all about you, not them.
First, I believe that everyone's feelings are important- it's not about managing them, it's about recognizing them and playing with them in mind. As for ego, everyone's ego is fragile- the thread is full of people who are upset by the very concept of a corner-case of magic rules giving them an L. Otherwise your hypothetical questions are bunk since you know literal nothing of my groups, which is cute, but not particularly helpful for discourse.
As for my personal corner case within a corner case, (Reminder: my board state being the only one that turns an Insurrection into lethal, by taking my own L and removing my permanents the game continues and it isn't my overextension that ends it), it is the very definiton of meta politics: recognizing that the feelings from one game will absolutely bleed into the next. By taking the L I had two players that considering it a sacrifice play and were more inclined to work with me in the next game, and one who was indifferent (though probably would've been out for my blood if not able to re-use his mana on the insurrection turn- but even if that were the table's decision, I'd take two friends and one "enemy" easily). Edit: Though unimportant to the example, the insurrection player did still ultimately win this game, for those concerned with the injustice of it all.
Back to ego, you're of course entirely correct that being the "fun-preserving martyr" is 100% all about me. Preserving the perspective of being the player who is "fun first" in every game is a big part of my identity as a commander player and it's entirely ego- but the good news is that, unlike a lot of other ego-driven magic mentalities, I at least need the input of others to validate it. You're welcome to assume whatever you'd like of the rest of the playgroup, though the continued assumption of the "whiners" they must be from literal one example is hyperbollically entertaining.
You can dress it up by calling it "tactical," but scooping to deny value is scummy, and no amount of flowery language will ever convince me that it's a noble act. If a player casts a game-winning Insurrection and you can't stop it in-game, then that player earned the win. Shuffle up and start a new game. Like adults.
-If you've agreed that speed-scooping is off-limits, then yes, they earned the win. But if it's not, then they didn't. The funny thing about "earned" wins is that, if they're actually earned...they're just wins.
In that particular case, were I the player with a big, insurrection-able board, then I'd try to make a deal with the insurrection player not to eliminate me in exchange for not ruining their insurrection by scooping. And if I were the insurrection player, I'd be quick to offer/accept such a deal, since I could still presumably put myself in a very good position afterwards. Maybe the insurrection-able player would also have to agree not to attack on the next turn...you get the idea. It's all just more levels of politics.
If you don't like those levels, then house rule it.
I think threads like this are great arguments for building less interactive decks. Who wants a big Commander-like win by stealing all the creatures on the board and turning them back on their owners when they'll just invalidate you anyway. Build early turn combo decks so that tactical scoopers can only speed up your inevitability. I suppose I'm mostly just amazed that this topic even has two sides.
People way overrate the risk of speed-scooping. Not only do very few people do it, but most strats aren't particularly affected by it. Insurrection, perhaps, although as mentioned above it can usually be politicked through if everyone is playing logically. Theft decks in general (such as Geth, which I've played a fair amount of) are pretty vulnerable to people leaving the game, whether from being eliminated, scooping out of spite, or just needing to catch the bus. It's an important part of the strat to be able to keep your hosts alive while you feed from them - if you aren't putting pressure on them until you've eliminated the other players, they're less likely to want to scoop, or be eliminated by the other players.
But these are corner cases, most decks are barely affected by speed-scooping, if at all. And combo is much stronger than what most people are doing, with or without speed-scooping on the table. Saying that people will play fast combo if speed-scooping is allowed is ridiculous - if people wanted to maximize wins during deck construction they'd all be playing fast combo decks regardless. But if they did have to worry about speed-scooping, it might make them think a little harder about politics.
The thing that annoys me most about this topic really, though, is how much people want to make it a MORAL issue. "speed-scoopers are babies, grow up, play like an ADULT, he EARNED that win with the SWEAT OF HIS 5RRR BROW". Do I think speed-scooping is a little lame, and a lot of people do it pointlessly out of spite? Sure, but it's a legal move, and used correctly it can actually be the CORRECT move. And I think anyone who plays magic, even if they don't necessarily like it, has to give a certain amount of respect to the correct play, and not try to turn a move in a game into a reflection of someone's character.
And seriously, I hate this "earned win" thing. If it was earned, it would be a win. You show me where in the comp rules it says anything about earning a win and I'll eat my tabernacle (ok, not really, but also I just ctrl+Fed the comp rules for "earn", just in case )
I don't mind it, but in a multiplayer game I'd expect any triggers to occur. If player X swings in with a load of lifelink at player Y, and Y scoops in response, I will give X those lifelink triggers and would expect the same in return, same with any on attack triggers, when this deals damage etc. Scooping to deny someone those sort of triggers is to me childish and spiteful. To compare it to football/soccer, and I know this isn't the best comparison but to me it's similar, it would be like Team X being 2-0 up at Half time, and Team Y saying they don't want to play the rest and so it ends 2-0, when Team X were dominating and need the opportunity to up their Goal difference as they're fighting relegation/promotion.
I don't mind it, but in a multiplayer game I'd expect any triggers to occur. If player X swings in with a load of lifelink at player Y, and Y scoops in response, I will give X those lifelink triggers and would expect the same in return, same with any on attack triggers, when this deals damage etc. Scooping to deny someone those sort of triggers is to me childish and spiteful. To compare it to football/soccer, and I know this isn't the best comparison but to me it's similar, it would be like Team X being 2-0 up at Half time, and Team Y saying they don't want to play the rest and so it ends 2-0, when Team X were dominating and need the opportunity to up their Goal difference as they're fighting relegation/promotion.
Why would team Y want to give their direct competitor any more advantage?
The tactical part is in threatening to scoop to hurt your killer, thus potentially causing them to not kill you and giving you a chance to win.
The odds of that are low to start with im most instances (as you stated) and would only get smaller (at least in my playgroup) as that threaten to scoop implies to me (the player who your threatening) and the other players (the ones that might benefit) that you are still a threat to be recognized and its more likely that 1. I kill you and get a deal with the others for doing so. 2. If I don't kill you the other people still know that you are a threat and will likely kill you. 3.So to not loose to each other they will kill you together. 4. Keep you alive with the ability to kill you any instant.
So I get why its tactical and see why you don't deal with it but even if you were besides the ire of someone else you don't really get much out of it.
Even though I Personally wouldn't like to play in Fenrirs Group (I really don't like active Kingmaking) there is no reason to attack him (or his way of doing things) personally if you are not part of his group. "Closed" Groups can do what they want and if everyones happy why not.
Also for me this is only an issue in pick up groups or "open groups" where houseruling is difficult due to ever changing group constellations. And In those I wish people would refrain from "speed scooping".
I don't mind it, but in a multiplayer game I'd expect any triggers to occur. If player X swings in with a load of lifelink at player Y, and Y scoops in response, I will give X those lifelink triggers and would expect the same in return, same with any on attack triggers, when this deals damage etc. Scooping to deny someone those sort of triggers is to me childish and spiteful. To compare it to football/soccer, and I know this isn't the best comparison but to me it's similar, it would be like Team X being 2-0 up at Half time, and Team Y saying they don't want to play the rest and so it ends 2-0, when Team X were dominating and need the opportunity to up their Goal difference as they're fighting relegation/promotion.
Why would team Y want to give their direct competitor any more advantage?
they wouldn't of course, but it seems very unsporting to walk away from the game in that way rather than let the lethal combat step resolve against you, when it could be the difference between them going on to win or not. I guess if everyone is fine with that style of play and expects it in return that's just how it is.
You can dress it up by calling it "tactical," but scooping to deny value is scummy, and no amount of flowery language will ever convince me that it's a noble act. If a player casts a game-winning Insurrection and you can't stop it in-game, then that player earned the win. Shuffle up and start a new game. Like adults.
-If you've agreed that speed-scooping is off-limits, then yes, they earned the win. But if it's not, then they didn't. The funny thing about "earned" wins is that, if they're actually earned...they're just wins.
In that particular case, were I the player with a big, insurrection-able board, then I'd try to make a deal with the insurrection player not to eliminate me in exchange for not ruining their insurrection by scooping. And if I were the insurrection player, I'd be quick to offer/accept such a deal, since I could still presumably put myself in a very good position afterwards. Maybe the insurrection-able player would also have to agree not to attack on the next turn...you get the idea. It's all just more levels of politics.
If you don't like those levels, then house rule it.
I think threads like this are great arguments for building less interactive decks. Who wants a big Commander-like win by stealing all the creatures on the board and turning them back on their owners when they'll just invalidate you anyway. Build early turn combo decks so that tactical scoopers can only speed up your inevitability. I suppose I'm mostly just amazed that this topic even has two sides.
People way overrate the risk of speed-scooping. Not only do very few people do it, but most strats aren't particularly affected by it. Insurrection, perhaps, although as mentioned above it can usually be politicked through if everyone is playing logically. Theft decks in general (such as Geth, which I've played a fair amount of) are pretty vulnerable to people leaving the game, whether from being eliminated, scooping out of spite, or just needing to catch the bus. It's an important part of the strat to be able to keep your hosts alive while you feed from them - if you aren't putting pressure on them until you've eliminated the other players, they're less likely to want to scoop, or be eliminated by the other players.
But these are corner cases, most decks are barely affected by speed-scooping, if at all. And combo is much stronger than what most people are doing, with or without speed-scooping on the table. Saying that people will play fast combo if speed-scooping is allowed is ridiculous - if people wanted to maximize wins during deck construction they'd all be playing fast combo decks regardless. But if they did have to worry about speed-scooping, it might make them think a little harder about politics.
The thing that annoys me most about this topic really, though, is how much people want to make it a MORAL issue. "speed-scoopers are babies, grow up, play like an ADULT, he EARNED that win with the SWEAT OF HIS 5RRR BROW". Do I think speed-scooping is a little lame, and a lot of people do it pointlessly out of spite? Sure, but it's a legal move, and used correctly it can actually be the CORRECT move. And I think anyone who plays magic, even if they don't necessarily like it, has to give a certain amount of respect to the correct play, and not try to turn a move in a game into a reflection of someone's character.
And seriously, I hate this "earned win" thing. If it was earned, it would be a win. You show me where in the comp rules it says anything about earning a win and I'll eat my tabernacle (ok, not really, but also I just ctrl+Fed the comp rules for "earn", just in case )
Ok, I will try to explain myself better this time (my natal tongue is not English as you may guess due my absolute failure to explain me so far)
Scenario #1
Player 1 plays Insurrection and takes all creatures, you have a huge board but 2 life, before damage you tap a mountain and lightning bolt yourself to deny the win to player 1.
This scenario is fine, is good and fair game, you used a in game play to deny your opponent the victory, it very well could be a teferi's protection, a counterspell or even a fog
Scenario #2
Player 1 plays Insurrection and takes all creatures, you have a huge board but 2 life, before damage you concede denying the victory because your creatures are not longer in the game
This is wrong, because you are using a non-game play, conceding is not a game move and in multiplayer it should not be allowed
In a 1v1 scenario, you can concede because the only player affected is you, you are not changing the outcome of the game by conceding in a 1v1 situation. so if you get salted because you are getting bet up in a 1v1 then conceding or not have zero impact in the result
But when you concede in a multiplayer game, then you are affecting other players and you are affecting the game by NOT PLAYING instead of affecting the game playing.
So conceding in the Insurrection situation scenario is cheap, low, wrong, childish, against the very basics concepts of fair play and sportsmanship.
If you can win by playing then great, if you can deny other peoples win while playing GREAT, but using 'tactical scoop' , as you like to call this dirty action (because it is an action just as flipping the table , not a play) only shows salt, trolling I have seen only in the very low skilled players and/or immature ones (no offense for anyone, it is just anecdotal evidence)
You wanna use feelings (your feelings to be precise) to argue against facts and logic. You also want to use peer pressure to bully people into doing what you want and finally you want to claim moral high ground.
You wanna use feelings (your feelings to be precise) to argue against facts and logic. You also want to use peer pressure to bully people into doing what you want and finally you want to claim moral high ground.
Ok, I will try to explain myself better this time (my natal tongue is not English as you may guess due my absolute failure to explain me so far)
Scenario #1
Player 1 plays Insurrection and takes all creatures, you have a huge board but 2 life, before damage you tap a mountain and lightning bolt yourself to deny the win to player 1.
This scenario is fine, is good and fair game, you used a in game play to deny your opponent the victory, it very well could be a teferi's protection, a counterspell or even a fog
Scenario #2
Player 1 plays Insurrection and takes all creatures, you have a huge board but 2 life, before damage you concede denying the victory because your creatures are not longer in the game
This is wrong, because you are using a non-game play, conceding is not a game move and in multiplayer it should not be allowed
In a 1v1 scenario, you can concede because the only player affected is you, you are not changing the outcome of the game by conceding in a 1v1 situation. so if you get salted because you are getting bet up in a 1v1 then conceding or not have zero impact in the result
But when you concede in a multiplayer game, then you are affecting other players and you are affecting the game by NOT PLAYING instead of affecting the game playing.
So conceding in the Insurrection situation scenario is cheap, low, wrong, childish, against the very basics concepts of fair play and sportsmanship.
If you can win by playing then great, if you can deny other peoples win while playing GREAT, but using 'tactical scoop' , as you like to call this dirty action (because it is an action just as flipping the table , not a play) only shows salt, trolling I have seen only in the very low skilled players and/or immature ones (no offense for anyone, it is just anecdotal evidence)
This distinction between "in game play" and "non-game play" is an illusion you've dreamed up to convince yourself that your position is justified by more than an opinion. Legally, conceding is very much part of the game and is right there in the comp rules, including what to do when someone concedes in multiplayer. If you think this rule sucks, then that's fine, you're allowed to think it sucks, but don't pretend there's some element of the rules justifying your position because there isn't: in fact it's very much the opposite.
Personally I'd say the person who concedes, and the person who self-bolts, in response to an insurrection without any attempt to politic are both guilty of the same crime - sucking at magic. And I do find it annoying when other people's misplays cost me the game. It's not at all the same thing as a fog, because fogging the insurrection is a good play instead of a bad, pointless, spiteful one. That said - though someone killing themselves (by any means) solely to deprive me of a win without any attempt to leverage that power would annoy me, it is perfectly legal to do so.
The vast majority of the time, people speed-scooping are NOT tactical-scooping; they're just scooping out of salty rage and trying to do as much damage as possible on the way out. And we can agree that this is annoying, absolutely. But it's also annoying when someone is a salty ragemonster and DOESN'T concede - the problem is playing with someone who's childish, NOT the game actions that they're taking. But don't equate smart politicking using tac concessions with babyrage scooping, because they aren't the same thing. And if you're trying to badmouth tac concessions by talking about people who are ragequitting, then all you've proven is that you don't understand a word I'm saying.
I feel like "any time that isn't during combat" is closer to how I'd feel. There are often combat triggers / lifelink etc that someone commits a turn to. But then also specifically just combat and not an infinite sequence of instants/abilities trying to use that window but not actually related to combat.
It can get messy when cards that change control of permanents are involved but that is the cost of playing those kinds of effects. I think I've lost access to winning components to Chancellor of the Spires sequences. If the line was there and nobody could do anything about it, it doesn't really matter whether or not someone concedes or not though. The conditions were right such that they play could be made.
On a separate note, any time Expropriate is cast, I will vote to give an extra turn and then immediately concede afterwards in an effort to pressure that card out of the local meta.
My two cents: Coming from a judge/tournament Magic background, it goes against most of my instincts to insist on anything other than being able to concede at any time for any reason. I understand that there are strategic and political implications to concession in multiplayer games, but those are things that the playgroup can work out among themselves.
At the same time, I'm not a fan of conceding to deny someone triggers or resources. In my mind, a concession shortly before you would lose anyway is just shortcutting to that point and none of the benefits of the kill should be lost to the aggressor.
Finally, I'll note that if snap concessions are a problem in your play group, then feel free to invoke Rule 0 and make a house rule preventing them.
My two cents: Coming from a judge/tournament Magic background, it goes against most of my instincts to insist on anything other than being able to concede at any time for any reason. I understand that there are strategic and political implications to concession in multiplayer games, but those are things that the playgroup can work out among themselves.
In a 1v1 tournament or not environment, conceding at instant speed does not affect anyone else, you concede, I win, so in a tournament I wont care if you concede against me at any speed, If I am attacking you with a 202/20 lifelik and you concede before damage I wont have the life gain, but I will won anyway so, who cares?
But in EDH, the same situation is different, because if you concede before damage you are denying me the life gain and I am still have to play against the other two in the table, so you are messing my game by not playing and I think this is a wrong use of the rules, an exploit to the rules.
In any case, If I see a player doing this, first I will try to convince him to behave if it works, great, if don't, then that is the last time I play with that guy if he is a PUG and if he is a friend, he will pay for that decision
In a 1v1 tournament or not environment, conceding at instant speed does not affect anyone else, you concede, I win, so in a tournament I wont care if you concede against me at any speed, If I am attacking you with a 202/20 lifelik and you concede before damage I wont have the life gain, but I will won anyway so, who cares?
But in EDH, the same situation is different, because if you concede before damage you are denying me the life gain and I am still have to play against the other two in the table, so you are messing my game by not playing and I think this is a wrong use of the rules, an exploit to the rules.
In any case, If I see a player doing this, first I will try to convince him to behave if it works, great, if don't, then that is the last time I play with that guy if he is a PUG and if he is a friend, he will pay for that decision
How do you propose we differentiate between "exploits to the rules" and "the rules"?
I remember, as wee lad, being very annoyed and confused that astral slide would return morph creatures like krosan colossus face up after exiling them. This seemed like it couldn't possibly be an intended part of the rules to me, as a kid. It seemed like a cheat, an exploit.
Must be fun to be your own rules manager, deciding what is, and what isn't, the "intended" functionality of the rules. And making people "pay" for their transgressions. o_O
Must be fun to be your own rules manager, deciding what is, and what isn't, the "intended" functionality of the rules. And making people "pay" for their transgressions. o_O
I understand why you don't see the dirty move a scoop is in the situations we are mentioning, its ok.
But by your own logic, If you are free to screw our games, then I am free to just not play with you anymore or even better, every time I play with you again then I will get my Markov battle cruiser and delete you by turn 3 every single time to the point you will concede as you want at instant speed while I am shuffling or you will behave like a player who cares about everyone's game, your choice everytime
I understand why you don't see the dirty move a scoop is in the situations we are mentioning, its ok.
But by your own logic, If you are free to screw our games, then I am free to just not play with you anymore or even better, every time I play with you again then I will get my Markov battle cruiser and delete you by turn 3 every single time to the point you will concede as you want at instant speed while I am shuffling or you will behave like a player who cares about everyone's game, your choice everytime
Nothing says "losing the argument" quite like trying to turn it into a deck measuring contest. (And not that it's relevant, but you'd lose. Badly.)
Of course anyone is free not to play with anyone else (thought that's not exactly within the scope of the comp rules). If you actually played me, it almost certainly wouldn't come up - as I've said repeatedly, I personally don't actually bother with tac scooping because people tend to get whiny about it. And if you wanted to house rule it so that it wasn't legal, I'd be perfectly happy with that too.
My only point is that, without house rules, it's a perfectly legal part of the game that adds some underutilized strategic complexity - and that a player's attitude and commitment to a good game is far more important than whether or not you find their actual game actions distasteful.
The thing that annoys me most about this topic really, though, is how much people want to make it a MORAL issue. "speed-scoopers are babies, grow up, play like an ADULT, he EARNED that win with the SWEAT OF HIS 5RRR BROW". Do I think speed-scooping is a little lame, and a lot of people do it pointlessly out of spite? Sure, but it's a legal move, and used correctly it can actually be the CORRECT move. And I think anyone who plays magic, even if they don't necessarily like it, has to give a certain amount of respect to the correct play, and not try to turn a move in a game into a reflection of someone's character.
And seriously, I hate this "earned win" thing. If it was earned, it would be a win. You show me where in the comp rules it says anything about earning a win and I'll eat my tabernacle (ok, not really, but also I just ctrl+Fed the comp rules for "earn", just in case )
The tactical part is in threatening to scoop to hurt your killer, thus potentially causing them to not kill you and giving you a chance to win.
The odds of that are low to start with im most instances (as you stated) and would only get smaller (at least in my playgroup) as that threaten to scoop implies to me (the player who your threatening) and the other players (the ones that might benefit) that you are still a threat to be recognized and its more likely that 1. I kill you and get a deal with the others for doing so. 2. If I don't kill you the other people still know that you are a threat and will likely kill you. 3.So to not loose to each other they will kill you together. 4. Keep you alive with the ability to kill you any instant.
Actual example from a past game of mine:
Radha player needs 2 more mana than he has to eliminate player C. Radha has me dead to rights, and a Neheb to get the mana he needs post combat. Radha cannot safely attack player C with any creature, including his Neheb, but I have no blocks that prevent him from killing me if he swings out.
I inform him I'll scoop before damage if he swings at me for lethal. Ultimately, he attacks me with Neheb and nothing else. I survive, he kills player C, and the game continues, giving me a chance at coming back. I did not ultimately win the game, but the threat of concession resulted in me not being killed that turn, exactly as described.
Radha player needs 2 more mana than he has to eliminate player C. Radha has me dead to rights, and a Neheb to get the mana he needs post combat. Radha cannot safely attack player C with any creature, including his Neheb, but I have no blocks that prevent him from killing me if he swings out.
I inform him I'll scoop before damage if he swings at me for lethal. Ultimately, he attacks me with Neheb and nothing else. I survive, he kills player C, and the game continues, giving me a chance at coming back. I did not ultimately win the game, but the threat of concession resulted in me not being killed that turn, exactly as described.
And he didn't kill you then but seemingly could kill you anyways (Don't know since I wasn't there) so you gained nothing but a turn. If its easier for him to let you live because he could kill you irregardles of what you do but not so much player C the only thing you gained is one turn. If he couldn't do that and looses to you he wouldnt have gained anything if he killed you and died to C he wouldnt have gained anything. To me that still looks like barely an increase in the tac scoopers win percentage. I get it, it is not 0 but it is below 1%, and it gets (presumably) smaller everytime you pull it of in the same group as people will become vary of keeping you alive (not just the guy you tac. scoop on but your other opponents as well)
As I said before I do not mind tac scooping i just think the downsides outweigh the benefits.
I built Inalla and Wanderwine prophets was one of my wincons. It requires someone being unable to block and a lot of mana to set up (something like 10 or so).
All three times I went for it the target hate scooped. So I removed it and went for less interactive combos.
My feeling is mostly that you should be a gentleman about scooping; scoop any time but only if it's not going to change the course of the game materially, and ask.
I built Inalla and Wanderwine prophets was one of my wincons. It requires someone being unable to block and a lot of mana to set up (something like 10 or so).
All three times I went for it the target hate scooped. So I removed it and went for less interactive combos.
My feeling is mostly that you should be a gentleman about scooping; scoop any time but only if it's not going to change the course of the game materially, and ask.
Oh no, your 1-card-combo-with-the-commander-that-doesn't-even-need-to-be-cast didn't work? What a sad, sad story.
I kid - in a competitive meta I'm sure it's a reasonable combo, and not annoying combo around a badly-designed abomination of a commander . But if moving to even less interactive combos was an acceptable direction for your meta, I don't think I'd personally have much interest in playing there. So it's hard to feel much sympathy for you.
If your goal was to say "look, speed scooping drives out fair wincons!" then...mission not accomplished. Sorry.
And he didn't kill you then but seemingly could kill you anyways (Don't know since I wasn't there) so you gained nothing but a turn. If its easier for him to let you live because he could kill you irregardles of what you do but not so much player C the only thing you gained is one turn. If he couldn't do that and looses to you he wouldnt have gained anything if he killed you and died to C he wouldnt have gained anything. To me that still looks like barely an increase in the tac scoopers win percentage. I get it, it is not 0 but it is below 1%, and it gets (presumably) smaller everytime you pull it of in the same group as people will become vary of keeping you alive (not just the guy you tac. scoop on but your other opponents as well)
As I said before I do not mind tac scooping i just think the downsides outweigh the benefits.
What's the downsides? I mean, if people get mad at you for doing it, then there's that - but otherwise you're usually only doing it in circumstances where you'd be guaranteed dead otherwise. There's literally nothing to lose.
Magic is a game of calculated risks. Even if there's a strong chance for you to recover and win, if losing triggers to your scoop hurts the attacker's chances to win more than leaving you alive, then it's correct for them to leave you alive. Depending on the circumstances, it could theoretically be correct for someone to leave you alive even if you have a 90% chance to win.
My 720 Peasant Cube
Or, if the majority of people at the table want you to scoop so the game doesn't end, you scoop, like an emotionally developed individual who cares about the meta-politics of the table. Though, admittedly, that's an impressively tall order for a lot of players.
Comes down to the playgroup in question again, doesn't it? It seems like spite scooping is more likely or common among particularly cutthroat groups, where denying a trigger could actually decide a game, so early game combo decks might not even be unwelcome. Such decks don't tend to earn you many friends though, but that's probably not your priority. It's pretty clear that this is an uncommon practice though, so it's mostly in the hypothetical.
BUG Sidisi, Brood Tyrant Sultai Good Stuff
GWU Derevi, Kind Tactician (no stax)
UBR Jeleva, Nephalia's Spellslinger
URG Animorph Sneakster
BR Mogis Hates Everyone
BG Hapatra and the Sneks
R Zada, Jankstorm
It's a tall order because it's absurd. Scooping to deny someone a win that they rightfully earned is bad form, to put it mildly. Why even play at all if you're so willing to change the outcome by ceasing to participate? Are you playing with children, or people whose egos are so fragile that they'd be shattered by losing fair and square? Why do you have to manage other players' feelings?
For our recurring example, Insurrection is an 8-mana spell that needs a certain board state to close a game out, and if someone engineers it, they deserve the win and their effort shouldn't be invalidated by someone taking their ball and going home. What you're talking about isn't meta-politics. No, what you're talking about is kowtowing to whiners with thin skin so you can indulge your self-image of the selfless, fun-preserving martyr of your playgroup. It's all about you, not them.
My 720 Peasant Cube
First, I believe that everyone's feelings are important- it's not about managing them, it's about recognizing them and playing with them in mind. As for ego, everyone's ego is fragile- the thread is full of people who are upset by the very concept of a corner-case of magic rules giving them an L. Otherwise your hypothetical questions are bunk since you know literal nothing of my groups, which is cute, but not particularly helpful for discourse.
As for my personal corner case within a corner case, (Reminder: my board state being the only one that turns an Insurrection into lethal, by taking my own L and removing my permanents the game continues and it isn't my overextension that ends it), it is the very definiton of meta politics: recognizing that the feelings from one game will absolutely bleed into the next. By taking the L I had two players that considering it a sacrifice play and were more inclined to work with me in the next game, and one who was indifferent (though probably would've been out for my blood if not able to re-use his mana on the insurrection turn- but even if that were the table's decision, I'd take two friends and one "enemy" easily). Edit: Though unimportant to the example, the insurrection player did still ultimately win this game, for those concerned with the injustice of it all.
Back to ego, you're of course entirely correct that being the "fun-preserving martyr" is 100% all about me. Preserving the perspective of being the player who is "fun first" in every game is a big part of my identity as a commander player and it's entirely ego- but the good news is that, unlike a lot of other ego-driven magic mentalities, I at least need the input of others to validate it. You're welcome to assume whatever you'd like of the rest of the playgroup, though the continued assumption of the "whiners" they must be from literal one example is hyperbollically entertaining.
In that particular case, were I the player with a big, insurrection-able board, then I'd try to make a deal with the insurrection player not to eliminate me in exchange for not ruining their insurrection by scooping. And if I were the insurrection player, I'd be quick to offer/accept such a deal, since I could still presumably put myself in a very good position afterwards. Maybe the insurrection-able player would also have to agree not to attack on the next turn...you get the idea. It's all just more levels of politics.
If you don't like those levels, then house rule it. People way overrate the risk of speed-scooping. Not only do very few people do it, but most strats aren't particularly affected by it. Insurrection, perhaps, although as mentioned above it can usually be politicked through if everyone is playing logically. Theft decks in general (such as Geth, which I've played a fair amount of) are pretty vulnerable to people leaving the game, whether from being eliminated, scooping out of spite, or just needing to catch the bus. It's an important part of the strat to be able to keep your hosts alive while you feed from them - if you aren't putting pressure on them until you've eliminated the other players, they're less likely to want to scoop, or be eliminated by the other players.
But these are corner cases, most decks are barely affected by speed-scooping, if at all. And combo is much stronger than what most people are doing, with or without speed-scooping on the table. Saying that people will play fast combo if speed-scooping is allowed is ridiculous - if people wanted to maximize wins during deck construction they'd all be playing fast combo decks regardless. But if they did have to worry about speed-scooping, it might make them think a little harder about politics.
The thing that annoys me most about this topic really, though, is how much people want to make it a MORAL issue. "speed-scoopers are babies, grow up, play like an ADULT, he EARNED that win with the SWEAT OF HIS 5RRR BROW". Do I think speed-scooping is a little lame, and a lot of people do it pointlessly out of spite? Sure, but it's a legal move, and used correctly it can actually be the CORRECT move. And I think anyone who plays magic, even if they don't necessarily like it, has to give a certain amount of respect to the correct play, and not try to turn a move in a game into a reflection of someone's character.
And seriously, I hate this "earned win" thing. If it was earned, it would be a win. You show me where in the comp rules it says anything about earning a win and I'll eat my tabernacle (ok, not really, but also I just ctrl+Fed the comp rules for "earn", just in case )
EDH Primers
Phelddagrif - Zirilan
EDH
Thrasios+Bruse - Pang - Sasaya - Wydwen - Feather - Rona - Toshiro - Sylvia+Khorvath - Geth - QMarchesa - Firesong - Athreos - Arixmethes - Isperia - Etali - Silas+Sidar - Saskia - Virtus+Gorm - Kynaios - Naban - Aryel - Mizzix - Kazuul - Tymna+Kraum - Sidar+Tymna - Ayli - Gwendlyn - Phelddagrif 4 - Liliana - Kaervek - Phelddagrif 3 - Mairsil - Scarab - Child - Phenax - Shirei - Thada - Depala - Circu - Kytheon - GrenzoHR - Phelddagrif - Reyhan+Kraum - Toshiro - Varolz - Nin - Ojutai - Tasigur - Zedruu - Uril - Edric - Wort - Zurgo - Nahiri - Grenzo - Kozilek - Yisan - Ink-Treader - Yisan - Brago - Sidisi - Toshiro - Alexi - Sygg - Brimaz - Sek'Kuar - Marchesa - Vish Kal - Iroas - Phelddagrif - Ephara - Derevi - Glissa - Wanderer - Saffi - Melek - Xiahou Dun - Lazav - Lin Sivvi - Zirilan - Glissa
PDH - Drake - Graverobber - Izzet GM - Tallowisp - Symbiote Brawl - Feather - Ugin - Jace - Scarab - Angrath - Vraska - Kumena Oathbreaker - Wrenn&6
Why would team Y want to give their direct competitor any more advantage?
The odds of that are low to start with im most instances (as you stated) and would only get smaller (at least in my playgroup) as that threaten to scoop implies to me (the player who your threatening) and the other players (the ones that might benefit) that you are still a threat to be recognized and its more likely that 1. I kill you and get a deal with the others for doing so. 2. If I don't kill you the other people still know that you are a threat and will likely kill you. 3.So to not loose to each other they will kill you together. 4. Keep you alive with the ability to kill you any instant.
So I get why its tactical and see why you don't deal with it but even if you were besides the ire of someone else you don't really get much out of it.
Even though I Personally wouldn't like to play in Fenrirs Group (I really don't like active Kingmaking) there is no reason to attack him (or his way of doing things) personally if you are not part of his group. "Closed" Groups can do what they want and if everyones happy why not.
Also for me this is only an issue in pick up groups or "open groups" where houseruling is difficult due to ever changing group constellations. And In those I wish people would refrain from "speed scooping".
they wouldn't of course, but it seems very unsporting to walk away from the game in that way rather than let the lethal combat step resolve against you, when it could be the difference between them going on to win or not. I guess if everyone is fine with that style of play and expects it in return that's just how it is.
Ok, I will try to explain myself better this time (my natal tongue is not English as you may guess due my absolute failure to explain me so far)
Scenario #1
Player 1 plays Insurrection and takes all creatures, you have a huge board but 2 life, before damage you tap a mountain and lightning bolt yourself to deny the win to player 1.
This scenario is fine, is good and fair game, you used a in game play to deny your opponent the victory, it very well could be a teferi's protection, a counterspell or even a fog
Scenario #2
Player 1 plays Insurrection and takes all creatures, you have a huge board but 2 life, before damage you concede denying the victory because your creatures are not longer in the game
This is wrong, because you are using a non-game play, conceding is not a game move and in multiplayer it should not be allowed
In a 1v1 scenario, you can concede because the only player affected is you, you are not changing the outcome of the game by conceding in a 1v1 situation. so if you get salted because you are getting bet up in a 1v1 then conceding or not have zero impact in the result
But when you concede in a multiplayer game, then you are affecting other players and you are affecting the game by NOT PLAYING instead of affecting the game playing.
So conceding in the Insurrection situation scenario is cheap, low, wrong, childish, against the very basics concepts of fair play and sportsmanship.
If you can win by playing then great, if you can deny other peoples win while playing GREAT, but using 'tactical scoop' , as you like to call this dirty action (because it is an action just as flipping the table , not a play) only shows salt, trolling I have seen only in the very low skilled players and/or immature ones (no offense for anyone, it is just anecdotal evidence)
This answers goes also to Fenrir
EDH: RWB Edgar Markov The current updated decklist is here
EDH: WUB Oloro, Ageless ascetic The current updated decklist is here
EDH: UWG Phelddagrif, The current updated decklist is here
EDH: WUB Yennett, Cryptic Sovereign The current updated decklist is here
EDH: WUB Alela, Artful provocateur The current updated decklist is here
EDH: GB Hapatra, vizier of poisons The current updated decklist is here
You wanna use feelings (your feelings to be precise) to argue against facts and logic. You also want to use peer pressure to bully people into doing what you want and finally you want to claim moral high ground.
Who is this answer for?
EDH: RWB Edgar Markov The current updated decklist is here
EDH: WUB Oloro, Ageless ascetic The current updated decklist is here
EDH: UWG Phelddagrif, The current updated decklist is here
EDH: WUB Yennett, Cryptic Sovereign The current updated decklist is here
EDH: WUB Alela, Artful provocateur The current updated decklist is here
EDH: GB Hapatra, vizier of poisons The current updated decklist is here
Personally I'd say the person who concedes, and the person who self-bolts, in response to an insurrection without any attempt to politic are both guilty of the same crime - sucking at magic. And I do find it annoying when other people's misplays cost me the game. It's not at all the same thing as a fog, because fogging the insurrection is a good play instead of a bad, pointless, spiteful one. That said - though someone killing themselves (by any means) solely to deprive me of a win without any attempt to leverage that power would annoy me, it is perfectly legal to do so.
The vast majority of the time, people speed-scooping are NOT tactical-scooping; they're just scooping out of salty rage and trying to do as much damage as possible on the way out. And we can agree that this is annoying, absolutely. But it's also annoying when someone is a salty ragemonster and DOESN'T concede - the problem is playing with someone who's childish, NOT the game actions that they're taking. But don't equate smart politicking using tac concessions with babyrage scooping, because they aren't the same thing. And if you're trying to badmouth tac concessions by talking about people who are ragequitting, then all you've proven is that you don't understand a word I'm saying.
EDH Primers
Phelddagrif - Zirilan
EDH
Thrasios+Bruse - Pang - Sasaya - Wydwen - Feather - Rona - Toshiro - Sylvia+Khorvath - Geth - QMarchesa - Firesong - Athreos - Arixmethes - Isperia - Etali - Silas+Sidar - Saskia - Virtus+Gorm - Kynaios - Naban - Aryel - Mizzix - Kazuul - Tymna+Kraum - Sidar+Tymna - Ayli - Gwendlyn - Phelddagrif 4 - Liliana - Kaervek - Phelddagrif 3 - Mairsil - Scarab - Child - Phenax - Shirei - Thada - Depala - Circu - Kytheon - GrenzoHR - Phelddagrif - Reyhan+Kraum - Toshiro - Varolz - Nin - Ojutai - Tasigur - Zedruu - Uril - Edric - Wort - Zurgo - Nahiri - Grenzo - Kozilek - Yisan - Ink-Treader - Yisan - Brago - Sidisi - Toshiro - Alexi - Sygg - Brimaz - Sek'Kuar - Marchesa - Vish Kal - Iroas - Phelddagrif - Ephara - Derevi - Glissa - Wanderer - Saffi - Melek - Xiahou Dun - Lazav - Lin Sivvi - Zirilan - Glissa
PDH - Drake - Graverobber - Izzet GM - Tallowisp - Symbiote Brawl - Feather - Ugin - Jace - Scarab - Angrath - Vraska - Kumena Oathbreaker - Wrenn&6
It can get messy when cards that change control of permanents are involved but that is the cost of playing those kinds of effects. I think I've lost access to winning components to Chancellor of the Spires sequences. If the line was there and nobody could do anything about it, it doesn't really matter whether or not someone concedes or not though. The conditions were right such that they play could be made.
On a separate note, any time Expropriate is cast, I will vote to give an extra turn and then immediately concede afterwards in an effort to pressure that card out of the local meta.
Older Magic as a Board Game: Panglacial Wurm , Mill
At the same time, I'm not a fan of conceding to deny someone triggers or resources. In my mind, a concession shortly before you would lose anyway is just shortcutting to that point and none of the benefits of the kill should be lost to the aggressor.
Finally, I'll note that if snap concessions are a problem in your play group, then feel free to invoke Rule 0 and make a house rule preventing them.
magicjudge.tumblr.com
GWU Angus Mackenzie's Fog of War GWU / B Sheoldred's Sleepless Cemetery B / R Ashling's Purifying Pilgrimage R
U Unesh's Sphinx Storm U / R Ib's Goblins: What It Says On The Tin R / UR Okaun & Zndrsplt Flip Out UR
Oathbreaker: UB Ashiok's Persistent Nightmare UB
In a 1v1 tournament or not environment, conceding at instant speed does not affect anyone else, you concede, I win, so in a tournament I wont care if you concede against me at any speed, If I am attacking you with a 202/20 lifelik and you concede before damage I wont have the life gain, but I will won anyway so, who cares?
But in EDH, the same situation is different, because if you concede before damage you are denying me the life gain and I am still have to play against the other two in the table, so you are messing my game by not playing and I think this is a wrong use of the rules, an exploit to the rules.
In any case, If I see a player doing this, first I will try to convince him to behave if it works, great, if don't, then that is the last time I play with that guy if he is a PUG and if he is a friend, he will pay for that decision
EDH: RWB Edgar Markov The current updated decklist is here
EDH: WUB Oloro, Ageless ascetic The current updated decklist is here
EDH: UWG Phelddagrif, The current updated decklist is here
EDH: WUB Yennett, Cryptic Sovereign The current updated decklist is here
EDH: WUB Alela, Artful provocateur The current updated decklist is here
EDH: GB Hapatra, vizier of poisons The current updated decklist is here
I remember, as wee lad, being very annoyed and confused that astral slide would return morph creatures like krosan colossus face up after exiling them. This seemed like it couldn't possibly be an intended part of the rules to me, as a kid. It seemed like a cheat, an exploit.
Must be fun to be your own rules manager, deciding what is, and what isn't, the "intended" functionality of the rules. And making people "pay" for their transgressions. o_O
EDH Primers
Phelddagrif - Zirilan
EDH
Thrasios+Bruse - Pang - Sasaya - Wydwen - Feather - Rona - Toshiro - Sylvia+Khorvath - Geth - QMarchesa - Firesong - Athreos - Arixmethes - Isperia - Etali - Silas+Sidar - Saskia - Virtus+Gorm - Kynaios - Naban - Aryel - Mizzix - Kazuul - Tymna+Kraum - Sidar+Tymna - Ayli - Gwendlyn - Phelddagrif 4 - Liliana - Kaervek - Phelddagrif 3 - Mairsil - Scarab - Child - Phenax - Shirei - Thada - Depala - Circu - Kytheon - GrenzoHR - Phelddagrif - Reyhan+Kraum - Toshiro - Varolz - Nin - Ojutai - Tasigur - Zedruu - Uril - Edric - Wort - Zurgo - Nahiri - Grenzo - Kozilek - Yisan - Ink-Treader - Yisan - Brago - Sidisi - Toshiro - Alexi - Sygg - Brimaz - Sek'Kuar - Marchesa - Vish Kal - Iroas - Phelddagrif - Ephara - Derevi - Glissa - Wanderer - Saffi - Melek - Xiahou Dun - Lazav - Lin Sivvi - Zirilan - Glissa
PDH - Drake - Graverobber - Izzet GM - Tallowisp - Symbiote Brawl - Feather - Ugin - Jace - Scarab - Angrath - Vraska - Kumena Oathbreaker - Wrenn&6
I understand why you don't see the dirty move a scoop is in the situations we are mentioning, its ok.
But by your own logic, If you are free to screw our games, then I am free to just not play with you anymore or even better, every time I play with you again then I will get my Markov battle cruiser and delete you by turn 3 every single time to the point you will concede as you want at instant speed while I am shuffling or you will behave like a player who cares about everyone's game, your choice everytime
EDH: RWB Edgar Markov The current updated decklist is here
EDH: WUB Oloro, Ageless ascetic The current updated decklist is here
EDH: UWG Phelddagrif, The current updated decklist is here
EDH: WUB Yennett, Cryptic Sovereign The current updated decklist is here
EDH: WUB Alela, Artful provocateur The current updated decklist is here
EDH: GB Hapatra, vizier of poisons The current updated decklist is here
Of course anyone is free not to play with anyone else (thought that's not exactly within the scope of the comp rules). If you actually played me, it almost certainly wouldn't come up - as I've said repeatedly, I personally don't actually bother with tac scooping because people tend to get whiny about it. And if you wanted to house rule it so that it wasn't legal, I'd be perfectly happy with that too.
My only point is that, without house rules, it's a perfectly legal part of the game that adds some underutilized strategic complexity - and that a player's attitude and commitment to a good game is far more important than whether or not you find their actual game actions distasteful.
EDH Primers
Phelddagrif - Zirilan
EDH
Thrasios+Bruse - Pang - Sasaya - Wydwen - Feather - Rona - Toshiro - Sylvia+Khorvath - Geth - QMarchesa - Firesong - Athreos - Arixmethes - Isperia - Etali - Silas+Sidar - Saskia - Virtus+Gorm - Kynaios - Naban - Aryel - Mizzix - Kazuul - Tymna+Kraum - Sidar+Tymna - Ayli - Gwendlyn - Phelddagrif 4 - Liliana - Kaervek - Phelddagrif 3 - Mairsil - Scarab - Child - Phenax - Shirei - Thada - Depala - Circu - Kytheon - GrenzoHR - Phelddagrif - Reyhan+Kraum - Toshiro - Varolz - Nin - Ojutai - Tasigur - Zedruu - Uril - Edric - Wort - Zurgo - Nahiri - Grenzo - Kozilek - Yisan - Ink-Treader - Yisan - Brago - Sidisi - Toshiro - Alexi - Sygg - Brimaz - Sek'Kuar - Marchesa - Vish Kal - Iroas - Phelddagrif - Ephara - Derevi - Glissa - Wanderer - Saffi - Melek - Xiahou Dun - Lazav - Lin Sivvi - Zirilan - Glissa
PDH - Drake - Graverobber - Izzet GM - Tallowisp - Symbiote Brawl - Feather - Ugin - Jace - Scarab - Angrath - Vraska - Kumena Oathbreaker - Wrenn&6
Actual example from a past game of mine:
Radha player needs 2 more mana than he has to eliminate player C. Radha has me dead to rights, and a Neheb to get the mana he needs post combat. Radha cannot safely attack player C with any creature, including his Neheb, but I have no blocks that prevent him from killing me if he swings out.
I inform him I'll scoop before damage if he swings at me for lethal. Ultimately, he attacks me with Neheb and nothing else. I survive, he kills player C, and the game continues, giving me a chance at coming back. I did not ultimately win the game, but the threat of concession resulted in me not being killed that turn, exactly as described.
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
And he didn't kill you then but seemingly could kill you anyways (Don't know since I wasn't there) so you gained nothing but a turn. If its easier for him to let you live because he could kill you irregardles of what you do but not so much player C the only thing you gained is one turn. If he couldn't do that and looses to you he wouldnt have gained anything if he killed you and died to C he wouldnt have gained anything. To me that still looks like barely an increase in the tac scoopers win percentage. I get it, it is not 0 but it is below 1%, and it gets (presumably) smaller everytime you pull it of in the same group as people will become vary of keeping you alive (not just the guy you tac. scoop on but your other opponents as well)
As I said before I do not mind tac scooping i just think the downsides outweigh the benefits.
I built Inalla and Wanderwine prophets was one of my wincons. It requires someone being unable to block and a lot of mana to set up (something like 10 or so).
All three times I went for it the target hate scooped. So I removed it and went for less interactive combos.
My feeling is mostly that you should be a gentleman about scooping; scoop any time but only if it's not going to change the course of the game materially, and ask.
UW Ephara Hatebears [Primer], GB Gitrog Lands, BRU Inalla Combo-Control, URG Maelstrom Wanderer Landfall
I kid - in a competitive meta I'm sure it's a reasonable combo, and not annoying combo around a badly-designed abomination of a commander . But if moving to even less interactive combos was an acceptable direction for your meta, I don't think I'd personally have much interest in playing there. So it's hard to feel much sympathy for you.
If your goal was to say "look, speed scooping drives out fair wincons!" then...mission not accomplished. Sorry. What's the downsides? I mean, if people get mad at you for doing it, then there's that - but otherwise you're usually only doing it in circumstances where you'd be guaranteed dead otherwise. There's literally nothing to lose.
Magic is a game of calculated risks. Even if there's a strong chance for you to recover and win, if losing triggers to your scoop hurts the attacker's chances to win more than leaving you alive, then it's correct for them to leave you alive. Depending on the circumstances, it could theoretically be correct for someone to leave you alive even if you have a 90% chance to win.
EDH Primers
Phelddagrif - Zirilan
EDH
Thrasios+Bruse - Pang - Sasaya - Wydwen - Feather - Rona - Toshiro - Sylvia+Khorvath - Geth - QMarchesa - Firesong - Athreos - Arixmethes - Isperia - Etali - Silas+Sidar - Saskia - Virtus+Gorm - Kynaios - Naban - Aryel - Mizzix - Kazuul - Tymna+Kraum - Sidar+Tymna - Ayli - Gwendlyn - Phelddagrif 4 - Liliana - Kaervek - Phelddagrif 3 - Mairsil - Scarab - Child - Phenax - Shirei - Thada - Depala - Circu - Kytheon - GrenzoHR - Phelddagrif - Reyhan+Kraum - Toshiro - Varolz - Nin - Ojutai - Tasigur - Zedruu - Uril - Edric - Wort - Zurgo - Nahiri - Grenzo - Kozilek - Yisan - Ink-Treader - Yisan - Brago - Sidisi - Toshiro - Alexi - Sygg - Brimaz - Sek'Kuar - Marchesa - Vish Kal - Iroas - Phelddagrif - Ephara - Derevi - Glissa - Wanderer - Saffi - Melek - Xiahou Dun - Lazav - Lin Sivvi - Zirilan - Glissa
PDH - Drake - Graverobber - Izzet GM - Tallowisp - Symbiote Brawl - Feather - Ugin - Jace - Scarab - Angrath - Vraska - Kumena Oathbreaker - Wrenn&6