I believe whatever makes the game enjoyable for the greatest number of people is the correct play.
The biggest example to this kind of issue has come up with Insurrection. My big, dumb battlecruiser deck has the best, spookiest board, and can kill the table if blockers are cleared with the mass mind control.
I respond by conceding. One player is salty, I’ve definitely lost (though helped play kingmaker), while two more players are still in the game- net political positive for the next game, and the current game continues with 2/3rd content.
Usually, the insurrection player is then allowed the classic take backsies and can use their turn and mana differently, essentially killing target player for nothing! Lots of ways around it without taking away the agency of concession at whatever speed you want.
And this kind of behavior is why conceding at instant speed should not be allowed, you are scooping to deny their legitimate wincon, is insurrection any worst than Triumph of the horde or similars.
Again, if you do that, if you concede to an insurrection you lack sportsmanship to say the least, and why those people will want to play with you again?
I mean, you can read, the answer to your question is in what you quoted: politics. My playgroups love me because I focus entirely on what provides the most enjoyable experience for the greatest number of players- full stop. If that means conceding so my overextending into an Insurrection doesn't end the game for half the table, it's entirely welcomed.
The problem with your arguments, concepts of sportsmanship itself aside, is that you're coming at it exclusively from the angle of the salty player. You aren't the only player in the game, and you definitely aren't the only voice or opinion that matters at any table. The delineation between "spite-scoop" and "tactical scoop" is telling- you're spitting one player, but being tactical to the benefit of the rest; it's all in the perspective. If the table at large disagrees with the scoop, I.E. the majority isn't happy, then I wouldn't do it. But, in every game where I've offered up my head on the block so the game can continue (which, mind you, isn't a huge sample size, but still relevant), the majority loved it and my reputation for kingly politicking persists.
Triumph of the Hordes is a poor example, if only because you'll find that poison is a contested win condition for roughly half the people I play with. To the point, however, any win condition that relies on your opponents is one that has to be weighed- while the haymakers of Insurrection, Bribery, and friends are the most relevant, there are countless other ways that you can get screwed over by relying on theft effects- whether a player is knocked out or concedes. I'm in the camp that a win-condition that relies on your opponents is not, in fact, "legitimate," but more because of the feels-bad nature of it, rather than any kind of fear of spite plays (oh curse my bleeding "fun first" philosophy).
I believe whatever makes the game enjoyable for the greatest number of people is the correct play.
The biggest example to this kind of issue has come up with Insurrection. My big, dumb battlecruiser deck has the best, spookiest board, and can kill the table if blockers are cleared with the mass mind control.
I respond by conceding. One player is salty, I’ve definitely lost (though helped play kingmaker), while two more players are still in the game- net political positive for the next game, and the current game continues with 2/3rd content.
Usually, the insurrection player is then allowed the classic take backsies and can use their turn and mana differently, essentially killing target player for nothing! Lots of ways around it without taking away the agency of concession at whatever speed you want.
This comes after the Finale of Eternity, which shows Lili in direct opposition to Bolas. That means that the Raven Man now has the Veil and the Dreadhorde, wonder what he's after...
Lili appears to have three story beats: working for Bolas commanding the Dreadhorde, turning the Dreadhorde against Bolas (as seen in the set trailer if you haven't watched it), and her directly attacking bolas in the new finale card. I suspect this is actually depicting the second, the moment in the trailer where she takes control.
I don't understand why people are so excited for this card. It isn't that good of a card. Standard and Modern wont play this. Is it that good for commander? Did she have some sort of lore that people are all silly about?
It's both. She does things in Boros that other Boros commanders don't, essentially giving the least tricksy color with the least amount of card advantage an avenue for both. As for lore, she's a character from back in the original Ravnica block that people have been waiting to see a card for. Combined, that's a slam dunk for the Commander crowd.
Well, the codename for the Kamigawa sets were "Earth, Wind, and Fire," they're missing one of the four elements, so obviously it's a return to Kamigawa. Or it's an allusion to tears, and "Tears" was the codeword for Shadows Over Innistrad, so instead, it's a return to Innistrad.
Or, you know, nothing because this kind of vagueness serves no particular purpose.
I find myself doing this on occasion, but it never becomes a problem for me because my deck building methodology is extremely flexible. Staples are staple for a reason, and if a commmander unquestionably "should" be able to take advantage of a staple,and for some reason can't with the current build, I will reevaulte the entire deck with this in mind- typically adding the staple in and editing the rest of the deck to fit it. 95% of the time, this ends up being to the decks benefit, and the "error" is user-based rather than in the staple.
The Knight has overperformed so far for me, being able to be a sage when you want it, life when you need it, and a beater at all other times is straight Commander gold.
Kozilek, Butcher of Truth is absolutely my favorite- he's straightforward to the point of being silly, but ramping into a nearly uncounterable draw-four on a huge body with annihilator (and therefore drawing more ramp for plays when he is inevitably answered) feels pretty good. Nothing quite like a 12/12 commander for serious inevitability.
Do people get grumpy when you have a giant anhillator that you can always cast though? I feel like OG kozilek would cause a lot of people to hate on you
It does happen on occasion, but it depends entirely on your opponents. A 12/12 annihilator, without any other built-in evasion or protection (something 2.0 has over him), is still ultimately just a big dumb beater. Because he is so easy to answer in a four-man game, he plays like an occasional explosive threat in the same vein as Xenagos, God of Revels, but otherwise is best considered as a reliable draw-four... which, it turns out, is still pretty darn good.
Kozilek, Butcher of Truth is absolutely my favorite- he's straightforward to the point of being silly, but ramping into a nearly uncounterable draw-four on a huge body with annihilator (and therefore drawing more ramp for plays when he is inevitably answered) feels pretty good. Nothing quite like a 12/12 commander for serious inevitability.
I only run it in Krav, the UnredeemedxRegna, the Redeemer, as both of its effects are relevant for either partner, even if not madness'd out. A never recommend running madness cards if they are only good when played for their alt cost, so this usually gets tucked, suitably, under the floorboards.
This card has been spectacular in Kess, Dissident Mage. Mid-game cast it for whichever side is best, and late game get both effects and ditch some excess lands.
I'm going to add another vote for Korlash, Heir to Blackblade as being my favorite casual-friendly mono-black commander. He looks like a big dumb beater (and is) but there are surprisingly few commanders with regenerate, which when combined with his large size makes him spectacularly durable.
A scaling commander is absolutely no joke, and being able to suit him up with Nightmare Lash or Lashwrithe to double up his beats makes him quite scary and requires that you devote very little space for an effective voltron package. I also like him more than the stereotypical skittles package, as an infect commander kind of gives up your gameplan immediately and almost certainly makes you a huge target. Korlash, on the other hand, can still sneak in that same win with Tainted Strike or Grafted Exoskeleton.
Wrap this all up in a more standard big-mana black package and you've got some fun that doesn't hate out casual games.
I mean, you can read, the answer to your question is in what you quoted: politics. My playgroups love me because I focus entirely on what provides the most enjoyable experience for the greatest number of players- full stop. If that means conceding so my overextending into an Insurrection doesn't end the game for half the table, it's entirely welcomed.
The problem with your arguments, concepts of sportsmanship itself aside, is that you're coming at it exclusively from the angle of the salty player. You aren't the only player in the game, and you definitely aren't the only voice or opinion that matters at any table. The delineation between "spite-scoop" and "tactical scoop" is telling- you're spitting one player, but being tactical to the benefit of the rest; it's all in the perspective. If the table at large disagrees with the scoop, I.E. the majority isn't happy, then I wouldn't do it. But, in every game where I've offered up my head on the block so the game can continue (which, mind you, isn't a huge sample size, but still relevant), the majority loved it and my reputation for kingly politicking persists.
Triumph of the Hordes is a poor example, if only because you'll find that poison is a contested win condition for roughly half the people I play with. To the point, however, any win condition that relies on your opponents is one that has to be weighed- while the haymakers of Insurrection, Bribery, and friends are the most relevant, there are countless other ways that you can get screwed over by relying on theft effects- whether a player is knocked out or concedes. I'm in the camp that a win-condition that relies on your opponents is not, in fact, "legitimate," but more because of the feels-bad nature of it, rather than any kind of fear of spite plays (oh curse my bleeding "fun first" philosophy).
The biggest example to this kind of issue has come up with Insurrection. My big, dumb battlecruiser deck has the best, spookiest board, and can kill the table if blockers are cleared with the mass mind control.
I respond by conceding. One player is salty, I’ve definitely lost (though helped play kingmaker), while two more players are still in the game- net political positive for the next game, and the current game continues with 2/3rd content.
Usually, the insurrection player is then allowed the classic take backsies and can use their turn and mana differently, essentially killing target player for nothing! Lots of ways around it without taking away the agency of concession at whatever speed you want.
Lili appears to have three story beats: working for Bolas commanding the Dreadhorde, turning the Dreadhorde against Bolas (as seen in the set trailer if you haven't watched it), and her directly attacking bolas in the new finale card. I suspect this is actually depicting the second, the moment in the trailer where she takes control.
It's both. She does things in Boros that other Boros commanders don't, essentially giving the least tricksy color with the least amount of card advantage an avenue for both. As for lore, she's a character from back in the original Ravnica block that people have been waiting to see a card for. Combined, that's a slam dunk for the Commander crowd.
Or, you know, nothing because this kind of vagueness serves no particular purpose.
It does happen on occasion, but it depends entirely on your opponents. A 12/12 annihilator, without any other built-in evasion or protection (something 2.0 has over him), is still ultimately just a big dumb beater. Because he is so easy to answer in a four-man game, he plays like an occasional explosive threat in the same vein as Xenagos, God of Revels, but otherwise is best considered as a reliable draw-four... which, it turns out, is still pretty darn good.
A scaling commander is absolutely no joke, and being able to suit him up with Nightmare Lash or Lashwrithe to double up his beats makes him quite scary and requires that you devote very little space for an effective voltron package. I also like him more than the stereotypical skittles package, as an infect commander kind of gives up your gameplan immediately and almost certainly makes you a huge target. Korlash, on the other hand, can still sneak in that same win with Tainted Strike or Grafted Exoskeleton.
Wrap this all up in a more standard big-mana black package and you've got some fun that doesn't hate out casual games.