What's the downsides? I mean, if people get mad at you for doing it, then there's that - but otherwise you're usually only doing it in circumstances where you'd be guaranteed dead otherwise. There's literally nothing to lose.
That is one good downside IMO. You see the people in here who are vehemently against it and If you have such people in your group you basically lowered your chance of winning future games.
And even those who arent vehemently against it will become vary if you win one or two games after getting a tac scoop win, and will be more likely to kill you together. (At least in my opinion, as a heavy comeback win is something people tend to remember thus skewing threat assesment) And even if you don't win, everyone who gets out before you will probably remember that as well especially if one of those people is the one who "spared" you.
So if you win its more of a won the battle but lost the war kinda scenario, and if you loose doing that (which in many cases is still likely) you gained nothing.
EDIT:
Magic is a game of calculated risks. Even if there's a strong chance for you to recover and win, if losing triggers to your scoop hurts the attacker's chances to win more than leaving you alive, then it's correct for them to leave you alive. Depending on the circumstances, it could theoretically be correct for someone to leave you alive even if you have a 90% chance to win.
True magic is a game of calculated risks but in such an scenario you'd think the other people will chime in and kill him anyways as for them it gives them a higher chance of wining, same with sth like a crackback truce.
That is one good downside IMO. You see the people in here who are vehemently against it and If you have such people in your group you basically lowered your chance of winning future games.
And even those who arent vehemently against it will become vary if you win one or two games after getting a tac scoop win, and will be more likely to kill you together. (At least in my opinion, as a heavy comeback win is something people tend to remember thus skewing threat assesment) And even if you don't win, everyone who gets out before you will probably remember that as well especially if one of those people is the one who "spared" you.
So if you win its more of a won the battle but lost the war kinda scenario, and if you loose doing that (which in many cases is still likely) you gained nothing.
EDIT:
Magic is a game of calculated risks. Even if there's a strong chance for you to recover and win, if losing triggers to your scoop hurts the attacker's chances to win more than leaving you alive, then it's correct for them to leave you alive. Depending on the circumstances, it could theoretically be correct for someone to leave you alive even if you have a 90% chance to win.
True magic is a game of calculated risks but in such an scenario you'd think the other people will chime in and kill him anyways as for them it gives them a higher chance of wining, same with sth like a crackback truce.
There's kind of two topics here - one being the correctness of sparing the speed scooper, and one being the psychological impact of someone recovering from nearly scooping and going on to win.
As far as the first thing - objectively, there will be times when it's absolutely correct to spare the speed scooper, even if the odds of them winning are quite high. There will also be many times when it isn't. Obviously it doesn't matter at all if you aren't relying on some sort of triggers, and then those triggers have to generally be pretty valuable, and usually the target's chances to win aren't super high (usually, but not always). So speed-scooping frequently isn't even an issue, or if it is, it's frequently an easy "sorry, killing you anyway". But being the best at magic means leveraging EVERY tool, and tac scooping is a tool, even if it's not one that commonly comes up. Whether or not you recover and win should have no impact on whether or not the player sparing you was correct. If it was the right move, it was the right move. Don't be too focused on the results of one specific game.
The psychology thing is totally dependent on your group, so I don't think there's much constructive to say about it. As I said, I don't bother since a lot of people do take umbrage with it. But if your group has a history of accepting speed scooping - well, it's part of the rules, why shouldn't they? In which case, doing it appropriately would indeed be a skill worth having. I think it's worth having a working knowledge of the strategy, in case one finds oneself somewhere where the practice is encouraged.
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.
While I didn't win the game, I gained much more than a turn. The reason the Radha player could safely attack me was because of my tapped creatures, not because of my lack of board state.
But being the best at magic means leveraging EVERY tool, and tac scooping is a tool, even if it's not one that commonly comes up.
Funny you say the above DirkGently when earlier in the thread you said the following:
"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."
So people will be tactical scooping as it gives them a slight advantage and being the "best at magic means leveraging EVERY tool", but a meta with tactical scooping will not really encourage people to play combos that don't care if someone tactically scoops even if it gives them an advantage?
I love infinite combos and competitive extra turns decks, so I am actually ok with tactical scooping if it is clear beforehand as I can just play my favourite type of decks. I guess my main issue with tactical scooping is people don't normally declare whether that is allowed or not when playing with new people (you could certainly argue they should and I'd agree, but would you agree it isn't common to do so?). Couple this with the fact I think it is fair to say a majority do not support tactical scooping and this generates king making games and animosity between players when someone out of the blue threatens tactical scooping when it isn't expected. It almost feels like the rules of the game are changing in that instance and nullifies any 'win' (even though I agree with others that a win is a win). What are you thoughts on that?
Additional thoughts:
When playing competitively I normally automatically assume the 'worst' and that someone will play as cutthroat as possible. I've been in competitive and less competitive games before and sometimes I point out tactical scooping potentials in game, but so far none of the 50+ people I've ever played commander with came out in favour of tactical scooping to deny combat triggers (one other person and myself would be ok with it if it was clear beforehand, but we were both the most cutthroat players in any of the groups I've played in).
I understand the purpose of allowing tactical scooping. That being that players own their cards and need to be able to take them and leave whenever they want, but that's why it seems tactical scooping is an accident of the rules. Perhaps a slightly messier rule that could support the majority who are against tactical scooping could be that scooping at anytime is allowed, but if someone insta-scoops players are allowed to move back a phase of the game (or move back to declare attackers step if insta-scooping occurs at any point during combat). It does seem allowing tactical scooping was the easiest way to have the rules though when making rules for the majority as a whole.
[quote from="DirkGently »" url="/forums/the-game/commander-edh/808982-talk-it-is-conceading-fair-play-to-you?comment=77"]So people will be tactical scooping as it gives them a slight advantage and being the "best at magic means leveraging EVERY tool", but a meta with tactical scooping will not really encourage people to play combos that don't care if someone tactically scoops even if it gives them an advantage?
I love infinite combos and competitive extra turns decks, so I am actually ok with tactical scooping if it is clear beforehand as I can just play my favourite type of decks. I guess my main issue with tactical scooping is people don't normally declare whether that is allowed or not when playing with new people (you could certainly argue they should and I'd agree, but would you agree it isn't common to do so?). Couple this with the fact I think it is fair to say a majority do not support tactical scooping and this generates king making games and animosity between players when someone out of the blue threatens tactical scooping when it isn't expected. It almost feels like the rules of the game are changing in that instance and nullifies any 'win' (even though I agree with others that a win is a win). What are you thoughts on that?
Additional thoughts:
When playing competitively I normally automatically assume the 'worst' and that someone will play as cutthroat as possible. I've been in competitive and less competitive games before and sometimes I point out tactical scooping potentials in game, but so far none of the 50+ people I've ever played commander with came out in favour of tactical scooping to deny combat triggers (one other person and myself would be ok with it if it was clear beforehand, but we were both the most cutthroat players in any of the groups I've played in).
I understand the purpose of allowing tactical scooping. That being that players own their cards and need to be able to take them and leave whenever they want, but that's why it seems tactical scooping is an accident of the rules. Perhaps a slightly messier rule that could support the majority who are against tactical scooping could be that scooping at anytime is allowed, but if someone insta-scoops players are allowed to move back a phase of the game (or move back to declare attackers step if insta-scooping occurs at any point during combat). It does seem allowing tactical scooping was the easiest way to have the rules though when making rules for the majority as a whole.
deckbuilding and gameplay are two different beasts. "Build casually, play competitively" as the edh mantra goes. Personally, I strive for the best play I can reasonably achieve. I don't usually play powerful decks, though.
Also "should" and "will" are different things too. People should be non-interactive combo decks if they want to maximize wins, speed scooping or no, but they generally don't (for which I'm grateful). And I don't think speed scooping really has enough impact to push that needle very far.
I generally agree with the rest of what you've said. I don't think the origin of the rules being simplicity/convenience is good reason not to "exploit" them when trying to play well, though - to go back to the astral slide example, it seems most likely to me that the whole "object forgets its prior state when it changes zones" rule was invented for simplicity's sake, so you don't have to track a bunch of stuff in other zones. Which then resulted in the somewhat strange "exploit" around morph. But hey, if those are the rules, then it's fair game. If you don't like those rules being exploited, then bust out the house rules.
[quote from="DirkGently »" url="/forums/the-game/commander-edh/808982-talk-it-is-conceading-fair-play-to-you?comment=77"]So people will be tactical scooping as it gives them a slight advantage and being the "best at magic means leveraging EVERY tool", but a meta with tactical scooping will not really encourage people to play combos that don't care if someone tactically scoops even if it gives them an advantage?
I love infinite combos and competitive extra turns decks, so I am actually ok with tactical scooping if it is clear beforehand as I can just play my favourite type of decks. I guess my main issue with tactical scooping is people don't normally declare whether that is allowed or not when playing with new people (you could certainly argue they should and I'd agree, but would you agree it isn't common to do so?). Couple this with the fact I think it is fair to say a majority do not support tactical scooping and this generates king making games and animosity between players when someone out of the blue threatens tactical scooping when it isn't expected. It almost feels like the rules of the game are changing in that instance and nullifies any 'win' (even though I agree with others that a win is a win). What are you thoughts on that?
Additional thoughts:
When playing competitively I normally automatically assume the 'worst' and that someone will play as cutthroat as possible. I've been in competitive and less competitive games before and sometimes I point out tactical scooping potentials in game, but so far none of the 50+ people I've ever played commander with came out in favour of tactical scooping to deny combat triggers (one other person and myself would be ok with it if it was clear beforehand, but we were both the most cutthroat players in any of the groups I've played in).
I understand the purpose of allowing tactical scooping. That being that players own their cards and need to be able to take them and leave whenever they want, but that's why it seems tactical scooping is an accident of the rules. Perhaps a slightly messier rule that could support the majority who are against tactical scooping could be that scooping at anytime is allowed, but if someone insta-scoops players are allowed to move back a phase of the game (or move back to declare attackers step if insta-scooping occurs at any point during combat). It does seem allowing tactical scooping was the easiest way to have the rules though when making rules for the majority as a whole.
deckbuilding and gameplay are two different beasts. "Build casually, play competitively" as the edh mantra goes. Personally, I strive for the best play I can reasonably achieve. I don't usually play powerful decks, though.
Also "should" and "will" are different things too. People should be non-interactive combo decks if they want to maximize wins, speed scooping or no, but they generally don't (for which I'm grateful). And I don't think speed scooping really has enough impact to push that needle very far.
I generally agree with the rest of what you've said. I don't think the origin of the rules being simplicity/convenience is good reason not to "exploit" them when trying to play well, though - to go back to the astral slide example, it seems most likely to me that the whole "object forgets its prior state when it changes zones" rule was invented for simplicity's sake, so you don't have to track a bunch of stuff in other zones. Which then resulted in the somewhat strange "exploit" around morph. But hey, if those are the rules, then it's fair game. If you don't like those rules being exploited, then bust out the house rules.
</blockquote>
The morph scenario is an INGAME move, the "dirty scoop" (I refuse to called it tactical) is not an ingame move, is cheap, low and spitefull
Or maybe I am wrong and I can use "tactical threteaning" in my next games, so the next time someone atacks me, I will just blink my eyes to the atacker and say "are you sure" and then I will flex my arms towards him closing my fist, and because I am a 104kg bodybuilder maybe they will not atack me, so cool, or because I am the one hosting the games I will say "if you attack em tehn I wont invite you anymore to this playgroup", both strategies are not ingame but is good politics right?
I don't know how many times I can make my point about "tactical" (read: exploitative) scooping encouraging a meta to skew toward non-interactive combo as an archetype immune to being wrenched by scooping. If people know that needing to deal damage to a player or target a player's board will expose them to petty methods like the spite scoop, they have a very direct incentive to build in ways that don't require those vulnerabilities so that they don't have to experience the supreme "feelbads" of a play being stolen by someone taking their ball and going home.
EDIT: One of my all-time favorite wins was off of a copy of someone else's T&N, memorably sniping a victory off my friend's play when he KNEW my deck was better equipped to use the spell and packing copy spells. That interaction would have been impossible in a speed-scooping meta/with a player who supports speed-scooping, he would have just forfeit on the spot instead of accepting the play.
The morph scenario is an INGAME move, the "dirty scoop" (I refuse to called it tactical) is not an ingame move, is cheap, low and spitefull
Or maybe I am wrong and I can use "tactical threteaning" in my next games, so the next time someone atacks me, I will just blink my eyes to the atacker and say "are you sure" and then I will flex my arms towards him closing my fist, and because I am a 104kg bodybuilder maybe they will not atack me, so cool, or because I am the one hosting the games I will say "if you attack em tehn I wont invite you anymore to this playgroup", both strategies are not ingame but is good politics right?
Scooping is part of the game, it's right there in the rules. Physically or emotionally threatening someone is not part of the game, and depending on the context, it may even be a crime. If you can't see the distinction I feel like maybe you should take a long, hard look in the mirror.
Also, just like...massive facepalm at another attempt to brag about yourself as though that had any relevance to the argument, very impressive debate tactic, A+
And sure, scooping can be spiteful. Any move can be spiteful, it just depends on the attitude of the person doing it. The attitude is what matters, not the move (so long as the move is legal, which scooping is). Be mad at poor sportsmanship, don't be mad at a legal game move.
I don't know how many times I can make my point about "tactical" (read: exploitative) scooping encouraging a meta to skew toward non-interactive combo as an archetype immune to being wrenched by scooping. If people know that needing to deal damage to a player or target a player's board will expose them to petty methods like the spite scoop, they have a very direct incentive to build in ways that don't require those vulnerabilities so that they don't have to experience the supreme "feelbads" of a play being stolen by someone taking their ball and going home.
EDIT: One of my all-time favorite wins was off of a copy of someone else's T&N, memorably sniping a victory off my friend's play when he KNEW my deck was better equipped to use the spell and packing copy spells. That interaction would have been impossible in a speed-scooping meta/with a player who supports speed-scooping, he would have just forfeit on the spot instead of accepting the play.
I don't know how many times I'll have to reply with the same counterargument - if people wanted to build decks with the utmost power in mind, speed scooping would be basically irrelevant because uninteractive combo is the most powerful option regardless. Most people don't do that, ergo we can assume that they aren't building for maximum power. A rarely-relevant thing like speed-scooping is unlikely to suddenly turn them all into combo players if they didn't want to do that in the first place.
And as always - if you don't like the rules, you can always amend them. Or campaign to wotc/the RC to change them.
As for your example, it's a fine example for pointless spite scooping but not for TACTICAL scooping. Does anyone in this thread who hates tac scooping even understand what tac scooping is? Your friend has no bargaining room because (1) you would have no reason to back down even if he did threaten to scoop, and (2) either way your friend will lose the game, so he has nothing to gain. As soon as you've revealed the copy spell in hand, your friend has lost. In that circumstance, he may as well let you kill everyone to start the next game faster, rather than scoop and prolong it.
I'm certainly not in favor of spiteful, pointless plays. So I would agree that your friend shouldn't scoop in that circumstance.
I don't know how many times I can make my point about "tactical" (read: exploitative) scooping encouraging a meta to skew toward non-interactive combo as an archetype immune to being wrenched by scooping. If people know that needing to deal damage to a player or target a player's board will expose them to petty methods like the spite scoop, they have a very direct incentive to build in ways that don't require those vulnerabilities so that they don't have to experience the supreme "feelbads" of a play being stolen by someone taking their ball and going home.
EDIT: One of my all-time favorite wins was off of a copy of someone else's T&N, memorably sniping a victory off my friend's play when he KNEW my deck was better equipped to use the spell and packing copy spells. That interaction would have been impossible in a speed-scooping meta/with a player who supports speed-scooping, he would have just forfeit on the spot instead of accepting the play.
I don't know how many times I'll have to reply with the same counterargument - if people wanted to build decks with the utmost power in mind, speed scooping would be basically irrelevant because uninteractive combo is the most powerful option regardless. Most people don't do that, ergo we can assume that they aren't building for maximum power. A rarely-relevant thing like speed-scooping is unlikely to suddenly turn them all into combo players if they didn't want to do that in the first place.
And as always - if you don't like the rules, you can always amend them. Or campaign to wotc/the RC to change them.
As for your example, it's a fine example for pointless spite scooping but not for TACTICAL scooping. Does anyone in this thread who hates tac scooping even understand what tac scooping is? Your friend has no bargaining room because (1) you would have no reason to back down even if he did threaten to scoop, and (2) either way your friend will lose the game, so he has nothing to gain. As soon as you've revealed the copy spell in hand, your friend has lost. In that circumstance, he may as well let you kill everyone to start the next game faster, rather than scoop and prolong it.
I have watched that exact skew in a several metas - getting to play out your lines instead of having them thrown in your face is a strong incentive.
As for my example, it was a tac scoop because we were playing fundamentally different kinds of decks - (1) I personally on principle have no reason to back down to a scoop ever, but in a more hypothetical context regarding the example, the copy play was a hail mary and if I didn't land it, I did not have the board presence to impact the game for much longer. It was that play or be dead in the water, which for players without a policy of Go Ahead And Scoop I Don't Negotiate Like That would be plenty of reason to back down. (2) Due to circumstances related above, if he could have gotten me to back down, the rest of the table (including him) had the presence to almost certainly grind me out before I got anything else done.
EDIT: A corollary to my point is that by discouraging interaction, tac-scooping encourages a more boring, linear approach to the format by punishing "clever" just-under-the-line plays where someone ekes out a win or dodges a blowout by smartly interacting with the board or game state.
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.
You almost always come across as unnecessarily hostile and it makes interacting with you unpleasant. You aren't kidding, you're being judgmental and snarky and trying to provoke a reaction as far as I can tell.
Well, reaction provoked, but perhaps it's not the inflammatory one you wanted I guess. Instead it's one in which I will avoid interacting with you more than I already do.
I would strongly suggest you work on your approach as I consistently find myself with no desire to interact with you. You're obviously a smart guy and I think the forum misses a lot of your insight because you present it so sharply.
I have watched that exact skew in a several metas - getting to play out your lines instead of having them thrown in your face is a strong incentive.
As for my example, it was a tac scoop because we were playing fundamentally different kinds of decks - (1) I personally on principle have no reason to back down to a scoop ever, but in a more hypothetical context regarding the example, the copy play was a hail mary and if I didn't land it, I did not have the board presence to impact the game for much longer. It was that play or be dead in the water, which for players without a policy of Go Ahead And Scoop I Don't Negotiate Like That would be plenty of reason to back down. (2) Due to circumstances related above, if he could have gotten me to back down, the rest of the table (including him) had the presence to almost certainly grind me out before I got anything else done.
EDIT: A corollary to my point is that by discouraging interaction, tac-scooping encourages a more boring, linear approach to the format by punishing "clever" just-under-the-line plays where someone ekes out a win or dodges a blowout by smartly interacting with the board or game state.
Your weak position isn't relevant to the context, what matters is whether your copy spell and associated mana is worth more than him conceding, which is probably not the case. If you really are screwed on board, then If he scoops or you back down, you lose either way. Hence, no reason to back down.
Theoretically he could offer long-term favors for backing down, but that's getting a bit far down the rabbit hole.
You almost always come across as unnecessarily hostile and it makes interacting with you unpleasant. You aren't kidding, you're being judgmental and snarky and trying to provoke a reaction as far as I can tell.
I apologize if I've come off as hostile. I tend to lose my temper when I feel I'm responding to the same arguments over and over.
It may be because you keep responding to an argument that no one's making. We get it, conceding is in the comp rules. No one ever said it wasn't. So yes, of course you can concede whenever you want (it's not like comp rules would have any power over the agency of a human being), but when you're just doing it to deny another player's actions, should you? I would say no.
And to echo another post, I refuse to call it "tactical" scooping. The word 'tactical' implies that it helps you get ahead in some way, which concession never does, obviously. If this kind of stuff is encouraged in your meta, then who cares what I think? This format should be all about house rules and metas regulating themselves. What I do know is that if you ever tried that at any of my metas, the following things would happen: the table will assume that all triggers, spells on the stack, etc. will still happen, and you'd be hard pressed to find a second game.
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've responded to that exact argument, almost word for word, multiple times. You ARE getting ahead by using tac scoops. And you aren't "doing it just to deny another player's actions".
To preserve my sanity, I'll just request you read my previous posts if you're interested in understanding.
Even while though i disagree with him, he did state the "benefits" of doing so, he even makes the distinction of if you don't do it with any benefit then it is not tactical scooping.
I agree that the psychological and in the current game things are different but if you want to use EVERY edge you can that doesn't matter since overall you will most likely loose more than you gain.
I also agree that sometimes its best to not attack /kill someone but that is "usually" not because of a tac scoop threat, because if it were the psycological aspect will be "most likely" the death of that player.
But I think we are at the point where we all put our opinions forth and start to repeat ourselves more and more.
Commander has a very rabid anti infinite combo, MLD, stax, etc camp in its playerbase, and so long as those players don't support tactical scooping, I suppose all is well. I have no qualms about hardcore, anything goes players sticking to their mantra on this topic as well. It's the spirit of Commander at heart here. I had a guy tactically scoop against me in a threeway, and while I ended up winning, it was mind-blowing and caught me totally off guard. I decided that wasn't happening twice, and no deck since relied on an opponent to exist for any of its strategies. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
For me anyway I didn't come to argue a point just present my experience and feelings on the matter.
Surely you're welcome to rebut that I guess but you're not going to get very far with me telling me how I feel is invalid
True enough - I think my more measured response would be that, at least from my perspective, the shift you've described is, at worst, a wash in terms of "what I wish to see in EDH". I don't wish to see uninteractive combos, but I also don't like 1-card combos - even if they are more interactive.
The scenario that would illustrate, to me, that speed scooping is having a negative impact on a meta would be if you (or anyone) shifted from a non-combo approach to a combo one because of speed-scooping. Moving from one combo to another is more of a lateral move, imo.
EDIT: also, that sounds like a "spite scoop" rather than a "tactical scoop". I'm generally against spite scoops - although if your meta is trying to discourage you from playing those combos, then I can see some justification in it.
Even while though i disagree with him, he did state the "benefits" of doing so, he even makes the distinction of if you don't do it with any benefit then it is not tactical scooping.
I agree that the psychological and in the current game things are different but if you want to use EVERY edge you can that doesn't matter since overall you will most likely loose more than you gain.
I also agree that sometimes its best to not attack /kill someone but that is "usually" not because of a tac scoop threat, because if it were the psycological aspect will be "most likely" the death of that player.
But I think we are at the point where we all put our opinions forth and start to repeat ourselves more and more.
This is probably as close as we'll get to an agreement. I'm definitely getting a bit sick of the topic =/
That is one good downside IMO. You see the people in here who are vehemently against it and If you have such people in your group you basically lowered your chance of winning future games.
And even those who arent vehemently against it will become vary if you win one or two games after getting a tac scoop win, and will be more likely to kill you together. (At least in my opinion, as a heavy comeback win is something people tend to remember thus skewing threat assesment) And even if you don't win, everyone who gets out before you will probably remember that as well especially if one of those people is the one who "spared" you.
So if you win its more of a won the battle but lost the war kinda scenario, and if you loose doing that (which in many cases is still likely) you gained nothing.
EDIT:
True magic is a game of calculated risks but in such an scenario you'd think the other people will chime in and kill him anyways as for them it gives them a higher chance of wining, same with sth like a crackback truce.
As far as the first thing - objectively, there will be times when it's absolutely correct to spare the speed scooper, even if the odds of them winning are quite high. There will also be many times when it isn't. Obviously it doesn't matter at all if you aren't relying on some sort of triggers, and then those triggers have to generally be pretty valuable, and usually the target's chances to win aren't super high (usually, but not always). So speed-scooping frequently isn't even an issue, or if it is, it's frequently an easy "sorry, killing you anyway". But being the best at magic means leveraging EVERY tool, and tac scooping is a tool, even if it's not one that commonly comes up. Whether or not you recover and win should have no impact on whether or not the player sparing you was correct. If it was the right move, it was the right move. Don't be too focused on the results of one specific game.
The psychology thing is totally dependent on your group, so I don't think there's much constructive to say about it. As I said, I don't bother since a lot of people do take umbrage with it. But if your group has a history of accepting speed scooping - well, it's part of the rules, why shouldn't they? In which case, doing it appropriately would indeed be a skill worth having. I think it's worth having a working knowledge of the strategy, in case one finds oneself somewhere where the practice is encouraged.
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
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
Funny you say the above DirkGently when earlier in the thread you said the following:
"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."
So people will be tactical scooping as it gives them a slight advantage and being the "best at magic means leveraging EVERY tool", but a meta with tactical scooping will not really encourage people to play combos that don't care if someone tactically scoops even if it gives them an advantage?
I love infinite combos and competitive extra turns decks, so I am actually ok with tactical scooping if it is clear beforehand as I can just play my favourite type of decks. I guess my main issue with tactical scooping is people don't normally declare whether that is allowed or not when playing with new people (you could certainly argue they should and I'd agree, but would you agree it isn't common to do so?). Couple this with the fact I think it is fair to say a majority do not support tactical scooping and this generates king making games and animosity between players when someone out of the blue threatens tactical scooping when it isn't expected. It almost feels like the rules of the game are changing in that instance and nullifies any 'win' (even though I agree with others that a win is a win). What are you thoughts on that?
Additional thoughts:
When playing competitively I normally automatically assume the 'worst' and that someone will play as cutthroat as possible. I've been in competitive and less competitive games before and sometimes I point out tactical scooping potentials in game, but so far none of the 50+ people I've ever played commander with came out in favour of tactical scooping to deny combat triggers (one other person and myself would be ok with it if it was clear beforehand, but we were both the most cutthroat players in any of the groups I've played in).
I understand the purpose of allowing tactical scooping. That being that players own their cards and need to be able to take them and leave whenever they want, but that's why it seems tactical scooping is an accident of the rules. Perhaps a slightly messier rule that could support the majority who are against tactical scooping could be that scooping at anytime is allowed, but if someone insta-scoops players are allowed to move back a phase of the game (or move back to declare attackers step if insta-scooping occurs at any point during combat). It does seem allowing tactical scooping was the easiest way to have the rules though when making rules for the majority as a whole.
Modern: URW Madcap Experiment
Pauper: MonoU Tempo Delver
My EDH Commanders:
Aminatou, The Fateshifter UBW
Azami, Lady of Scrolls U
Mikaeus, the Unhallowed B
Edric, Spymaster of Trest UG
Glissa, the Traitor BG
Arcum Dagsson U
Also "should" and "will" are different things too. People should be non-interactive combo decks if they want to maximize wins, speed scooping or no, but they generally don't (for which I'm grateful). And I don't think speed scooping really has enough impact to push that needle very far.
I generally agree with the rest of what you've said. I don't think the origin of the rules being simplicity/convenience is good reason not to "exploit" them when trying to play well, though - to go back to the astral slide example, it seems most likely to me that the whole "object forgets its prior state when it changes zones" rule was invented for simplicity's sake, so you don't have to track a bunch of stuff in other zones. Which then resulted in the somewhat strange "exploit" around morph. But hey, if those are the rules, then it's fair game. If you don't like those rules being exploited, then bust out the house rules.
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
The morph scenario is an INGAME move, the "dirty scoop" (I refuse to called it tactical) is not an ingame move, is cheap, low and spitefull
Or maybe I am wrong and I can use "tactical threteaning" in my next games, so the next time someone atacks me, I will just blink my eyes to the atacker and say "are you sure" and then I will flex my arms towards him closing my fist, and because I am a 104kg bodybuilder maybe they will not atack me, so cool, or because I am the one hosting the games I will say "if you attack em tehn I wont invite you anymore to this playgroup", both strategies are not ingame but is good politics right?
By the way, This is a good video about this topic, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsAxHq5IM5M
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
EDIT: One of my all-time favorite wins was off of a copy of someone else's T&N, memorably sniping a victory off my friend's play when he KNEW my deck was better equipped to use the spell and packing copy spells. That interaction would have been impossible in a speed-scooping meta/with a player who supports speed-scooping, he would have just forfeit on the spot instead of accepting the play.
EDIT EDIT: Post editing is acting screwy as hell.
Most Used (of many dozens) EDH Decks:
Brago, King Eternal - Stax
Grenzo, Dungeon Warden - Aggro Combo
Wort, the Raidmother - Spellslinger Swarm Control
Animar, Soul of Elements - Tempo Combo
Yidris, Maelstrom Wielder - Spellslinger
Exodia the Forbidden One:
Oona, Queen of the Fae - Combowins.dec
Also, just like...massive facepalm at another attempt to brag about yourself as though that had any relevance to the argument, very impressive debate tactic, A+
And sure, scooping can be spiteful. Any move can be spiteful, it just depends on the attitude of the person doing it. The attitude is what matters, not the move (so long as the move is legal, which scooping is). Be mad at poor sportsmanship, don't be mad at a legal game move.
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
And as always - if you don't like the rules, you can always amend them. Or campaign to wotc/the RC to change them.
As for your example, it's a fine example for pointless spite scooping but not for TACTICAL scooping. Does anyone in this thread who hates tac scooping even understand what tac scooping is? Your friend has no bargaining room because (1) you would have no reason to back down even if he did threaten to scoop, and (2) either way your friend will lose the game, so he has nothing to gain. As soon as you've revealed the copy spell in hand, your friend has lost. In that circumstance, he may as well let you kill everyone to start the next game faster, rather than scoop and prolong it.
I'm certainly not in favor of spiteful, pointless plays. So I would agree that your friend shouldn't scoop in that circumstance.
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 have watched that exact skew in a several metas - getting to play out your lines instead of having them thrown in your face is a strong incentive.
As for my example, it was a tac scoop because we were playing fundamentally different kinds of decks - (1) I personally on principle have no reason to back down to a scoop ever, but in a more hypothetical context regarding the example, the copy play was a hail mary and if I didn't land it, I did not have the board presence to impact the game for much longer. It was that play or be dead in the water, which for players without a policy of Go Ahead And Scoop I Don't Negotiate Like That would be plenty of reason to back down. (2) Due to circumstances related above, if he could have gotten me to back down, the rest of the table (including him) had the presence to almost certainly grind me out before I got anything else done.
EDIT: A corollary to my point is that by discouraging interaction, tac-scooping encourages a more boring, linear approach to the format by punishing "clever" just-under-the-line plays where someone ekes out a win or dodges a blowout by smartly interacting with the board or game state.
Most Used (of many dozens) EDH Decks:
Brago, King Eternal - Stax
Grenzo, Dungeon Warden - Aggro Combo
Wort, the Raidmother - Spellslinger Swarm Control
Animar, Soul of Elements - Tempo Combo
Yidris, Maelstrom Wielder - Spellslinger
Exodia the Forbidden One:
Oona, Queen of the Fae - Combowins.dec
You almost always come across as unnecessarily hostile and it makes interacting with you unpleasant. You aren't kidding, you're being judgmental and snarky and trying to provoke a reaction as far as I can tell.
Well, reaction provoked, but perhaps it's not the inflammatory one you wanted I guess. Instead it's one in which I will avoid interacting with you more than I already do.
I would strongly suggest you work on your approach as I consistently find myself with no desire to interact with you. You're obviously a smart guy and I think the forum misses a lot of your insight because you present it so sharply.
UW Ephara Hatebears [Primer], GB Gitrog Lands, BRU Inalla Combo-Control, URG Maelstrom Wanderer Landfall
Theoretically he could offer long-term favors for backing down, but that's getting a bit far down the rabbit hole.
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
Surely you're welcome to rebut that I guess but you're not going to get very far with me telling me how I feel is invalid
UW Ephara Hatebears [Primer], GB Gitrog Lands, BRU Inalla Combo-Control, URG Maelstrom Wanderer Landfall
Agreed.
It may be because you keep responding to an argument that no one's making. We get it, conceding is in the comp rules. No one ever said it wasn't. So yes, of course you can concede whenever you want (it's not like comp rules would have any power over the agency of a human being), but when you're just doing it to deny another player's actions, should you? I would say no.
And to echo another post, I refuse to call it "tactical" scooping. The word 'tactical' implies that it helps you get ahead in some way, which concession never does, obviously. If this kind of stuff is encouraged in your meta, then who cares what I think? This format should be all about house rules and metas regulating themselves. What I do know is that if you ever tried that at any of my metas, the following things would happen: the table will assume that all triggers, spells on the stack, etc. will still happen, and you'd be hard pressed to find a second game.
My 720 Peasant Cube
To preserve my sanity, I'll just request you read my previous posts if you're interested in understanding.
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 agree that the psychological and in the current game things are different but if you want to use EVERY edge you can that doesn't matter since overall you will most likely loose more than you gain.
I also agree that sometimes its best to not attack /kill someone but that is "usually" not because of a tac scoop threat, because if it were the psycological aspect will be "most likely" the death of that player.
But I think we are at the point where we all put our opinions forth and start to repeat ourselves more and more.
The scenario that would illustrate, to me, that speed scooping is having a negative impact on a meta would be if you (or anyone) shifted from a non-combo approach to a combo one because of speed-scooping. Moving from one combo to another is more of a lateral move, imo.
EDIT: also, that sounds like a "spite scoop" rather than a "tactical scoop". I'm generally against spite scoops - although if your meta is trying to discourage you from playing those combos, then I can see some justification in it.
This is probably as close as we'll get to an agreement. I'm definitely getting a bit sick of the topic =/
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