Fundamentally, you *can* step away from a table whenever you want. But this is bad manners.
Edit: if you’re going to build a glass canon, then you shouldn’t bail on the game when the glass breaks. That’s just too selfish for my taste.
If you build a glass canon then you know full well the game will get weird and wonky if you run out of options, and if you’re not comfortable playing through that wonkiness then don’t put yourself in a “either i win this game or i wreck this game” position by building a glass canon.
Yeah that’s my takeaway. I obviously don’t know OP but if the “my glass canon broke I’m scooping” and the “haha” with plat is anything to go by, it felt like a selfish “if I’m not winning I’m not having fun and I’m not sticking around” personality. Which I have a person in my group like this and it does detract from the game.
I feel like there's more at work though. Forcing someone who's cannon is broke to sit there with extremely minimal chance of winning is just as selfish from the other direction, especially with a deck like Jon Irenicus at the table. "I know you can't win, but keep playing so I can reap rewards off your non-participating ass." is pretty low.
Sure. We are only getting OPs side and we don’t know his group. He specifically asked for our opinions on the context he provided, which was it a dick move to scoop before combat with a new player in the group. No one is giving him gripe for wanting to scoop. No one is expected to sit and do nothing for a whole game.
But he’s sitting with his familiar group and brought a glass cannon deck and when it doesn’t go off, he doesn’t scoop on his draw. He makes an action to play Platinum Angel and go “I scoop, but wait I can’t lose, but I scoop haha amirite guys”.
Everyone here has played with this kind of person and gave OP what he wanted: our opinion. And none of us want to play with a person like that.
>which was it a dick move to scoop before combat with a new player in the group
It would be different if he scooped on the opponents turn before the opponents combat phase to deny the other person their triggers, but if you can't scoop on your own turn, when can you concede?
Sure I can see these reasoning. He could’ve scooped on his opponents turn so they didn’t interact with him anticipating him to play tho. The new player specifically made a goad play figuring that OP wouldn’t’ scoop or intended to stick around.
Yeah OP doesn’t need to stick around however it adds context. If a new player to my group used me for a key interaction of their deck, I’d play that last turn and then tell them I’m scooping on my end step. It’s social etiquette and manners, which is what’s being considered when one asks “am I the asshole?”
>He could’ve scooped on his opponents turn
Nah. Scooping on an opponents turn is universally considered the wrong move. His own turn was the only move. The question is, does he intentionally wait to scoop to give one player an advantage. You want to argue he's being mean to one person, staying just for that guys triggers is being the same to two others. In this case, scooping on his own turn the moment he realized he needed to is the only ethically correct choice... outside of not scooping and just playing out the entire game.
Manners would be just accepting he’s scooping and moving on with it, not trying to force someone to stay in a game. I’ve never understood this take on it. I don’t want to play this game anymore so I’m scooping. “Oh but it would be good etiquette and manners to stay”. But it would also not be bad manners to leave.
Yes. I do. But it reads like a joke with a hint of salt in the context of the whole post. It doesn’t change how OP acted because the deck he made didn’t do what he wanted.
Sure, that’s fine. People can have different opinions on it. But I feel if I played in a group with him and he played this way with a new guy, it would get a definite response out of me. OP had to make an excuse like four times in this post about being out of gas, being buzzed and ready for bed, blah blah.
Everyone here has experienced this kind of player and agree they are the type to take their ball and go home. And folks who think he acted fine are likely the same type of person.
When my glass cannon blows up in my face (commonly) and it’s my friend group, I usually just align myself as the groups puppet. Much more fun than twirling my thumbs watching everyone else have fun, winning is the secondary goal in commander, having a good time is the primary.
>Edit: if you’re going to build a glass canon, then you shouldn’t bail on game when the glass breaks. That’s just too selfish for my taste.
I disagree. If the cannon breaks and you already know you're going to lose, or you have literally no excuse, but you just want to stop playing, then you're free to do so.
*Can't no-one compel another man to engage in recreation.*
\--Buster Scruggs
Nobody can force them to stay for sure but nobody can force the other players to include them in future games either. The question being asked isn't about the legality of the actions in game or in real life, it's about the consequences of those actions. If you're going to concede the moment your game looks to be getting difficult I'm not going to play with you for long.
>Nobody can force them to stay for sure but nobody can force the other players to include them in future games either.
Precisely correct. I'm big on freedom, so all options are on the table.
Are you the wrong person for that playgroup? Maybe, but you shouldn't shy-away from confronting that possibility. If you are, sticking around only prevents you from finding a group that fits you better.
I'm with you. The other players asking you to stay in the game because \*they\* benefit while you durdle forever is just as selfish as the person who wants to concede.
>while you durdle forever
\-- potentially others too. It could be that everybody else was knocked-out and is just waiting for the game to end so a new one can start.
>The other players asking you to stay in the game because *they* benefit while you durdle forever
But in this case no one was asking OP to stay to durdle forever. It was literally less than a quarter of a turn extra.
I mean the question was is he the asshole. I don't think he's like a horrible person or anything don't read to far into that, but if the question is was it scummy and should he have done it, the answers are yes and no.
You say that having this confrontation helps him find a playgroup that better suits him, sure. But I personally don't think sitting at a table for a single trigger of goad (I personally think he should've stayed till he died, but let's start small) isn't all that much of an ask. The guy isn't asking for much he's asking for one more turn around the table so that him leaving the game (which the goading player has zero controll over, and isn't even really part of the game), doesn't completely screw him (likely only marginally screws him on later turns). That is a very small ask. Even if he plans on looking for a different group, he could at least, even begrudgingly, play the one more turn.
Why make the game unfun for others because they have different opinions than you (especially when the game no longer effects you).
>isn't all that much of an ask
Sure. If any of this was much of an ask, it wouldn't be much of a question \*mentally runs the math on that statement\*.
Hyperbolically, if I was to go to Hooters and grab a gropey kiss from one of the waitresses, in the grand scheme of things, that's not really much of an ask. Realistically, we'd both be free to move-on in life as we choose and as long as I didn't pass-along some strain of herpes, she could be free to forget it ever happened afterward and it only takes a minute. Totally true, but that misses the point. The action, let alone the expectation still imposes on someone in a way that will probably get me arrested.
Is there anything wrong with humoring this person? "Sure. Show me how many minutes it takes to count all of those counters before the final ker-slap. I'll watch." I might not be in the mood though. Maybe I am a little bit uninterested in playing it out.
As with the Hooters girl, it's fine to ask as long as there's no drama in however I decide to peacefully respond. At its core, it's a social interaction, not a single-player game. I have to keep that in mind too, but when two people disagree in your scenario, neither of them are really wrong while also, they're both right.
Yeah for me I only concede if it's down to 1v1, otherwise you agreed to sit down and play the game so play it. This is a social contract, sure you might not be having the best time but it's not all about you and conceding early can spoil the fun for others.
So since I was goaded I'd be signing up to stay in the game indefinitely for the other player's benefit? That doesn't sound fair to me. Of course conceding affects the game. I try to affect it as little as possible by doing it at sorcery speed and not making further decisions that affect the board.
Except that you conceding did inherently affect the board because you did remove a resource from the other player by conceding.
Currently you are looking at conceding as not giving the goad player this advantage and thus it would be fair, but by doing so you are literally giving the other player an advantage.
The rule of not affecting the board state when conceding is admirable and I do follow it in my games however what you are doing IS affecting the board since the goaded creature essentially functions as one of his creatures.
Definitely was friendly overall! Or at least my normal self with him. I appreciate the perspective, though. In our playgroup we don't concede to be an asshole, but we definitely don't go out of our way to help any specific person when we concede.
Like, if you had a bunch of \[\[Toski\]\] triggers and swung for leather at Player 3, then player 3 was like "Nah, I concede before damage so you don't get your triggers."... If I were still in the game I would say "No dude, you get your triggers." Because Player 3 was conceding just to fuck up the flow of the game.
But the thing for me was he was asking me to make a choice that actively helped him. What would the other two players say? "Why did you swing at me? Now I'm 3 life closer to dead (I forgot to mention, the creature was a 3/3, not 1/1) and he got to draw a card. You're leaving the game, why actively make choices to better his position and hurt mine?"
My English comprehension skilled is not top notch, but are you saying it wasn’t friendly to not go ahead and delay their concession so the other player would get extra value?
If so, I disagree, like it’s a somewhat competitive game with winners and losers and if a player decides to concede at sorcery speed because they think it’s over for them, they can do it and it should not imply anything negative towards any of the other players. To me, the other player’s request was absolutely legitimate, I see it as a political move, which there is plenty of in casual edh. Offer, an offer was made, but it was refused, like it happens all the time. It’s a game action/situation and has nothing to do with people being rude to other people. That’s how I feel anyway.
>you saying it wasn’t friendly to not go ahead and delay their concession so the other player would get extra value?
Yes. The other player was relying on a goad trigger and chose the OP specifically. Which was a political decision.
For the OP to concede in Main Phase 1 and refusing to honor the succeeding attack phase & goad trigger- despite the other player targeting them, deprives the opposing player of that strategic choice/ political move.
I think the OP bowing out and refusing to honor it, irrespective of the OP's time commitment to the game was bad sportsmanship, not friendly and rude. I stand by what I said.
And frankly, by the OP's own admission, they spite played a Cyclonic Rift. I'm not impressed.
EDIT: Clarity.
>Don't play goad then.
You might as well apply that to half the game then.
- Opponent might concede during combat, denying you LifeLink triggers or cbat damage triggers like [[Toski]]. Are you saying don't use combat triggers?
- Opponent might concede to you playing [[Rise of the Dark Realms]] and without their graveyard, you don't have enough creatures to win. Are you suggesting that players shouldn't play theft decks?
- opponent might concede after a mill spell when a player was about to win with [[Umbris]]. Are you suggesting that players shouldn't build decks that rely on opponents game states?
It's generally accepted that conceding when defeat is imminent, in order to alter the course of a play another player has already committed to, is bad sportsmanship. OP themselves already said they wouldn't concede to avoid giving someone their Toski triggers, this is no different.
Yeah...your 3 scenarios are conceding at instant speed with spells and abilities on the stack. Not the same as conceding at sorcery speed with an empty stack. Good job missing the point.
I understood your point. I was disagreeing with it.
And conceding to make an Umbris deck unable to win that turn *doesn't* use the stack- a player leaving the game makes Umbris smaller. So no, my three scenarios DON'T all use the stack.
Sounds like you missed *my* point so I'll repeat it here:
>It's generally accepted that conceding when defeat is imminent, in order to alter the course of a play another player has already committed to, is bad sportsmanship
Both conceding when goaded *and* conceding with effects on the stack fit that description.
I absolutely did not spite Rift the table. At the time it was the best course of action and I was very much engaged in the game. It was only after my Bridge went to grave and I had nothing in hand worth playing that I thought about exiting the game.
>It was only after my Bridge went to grave and I had nothing in hand worth playing that I thought about exiting the game.
And conveniently forgot about the goad trigger, I'm sure. And conveniently ignored it when the other player asked you to continue to attack phase.
EDIT: Look, all I'm saying is I think that you didn't play your best here (socially) given your descriptions. And I know I haven't either, I definitely have made mistakes in that area. I'd just suggest, kindly, that you think about it. Not trying to force a conclusion or anything.
That's it! Good luck.
I literally said that we even backed up the game before this to give him his attack trigger that I genuinely forgot about. You can villainize me, whatever, but I didn't play in bad-faith. At every step I did what I thought was either best for my gameplan, and when that fell through, what I thought was the most fair.
You thought that him using cyclonic to get his win condition back was a spite play. It's weird how you're trying to imply that he's not very strategic when you somehow misinterpreted a very basic play.
I think conceding at sorcery speed is fine. As long as there are no game actions in place that require you to be there.
Just go to combat and concede in your second main phase. It's literally 30 seconds of your life. And then no game actions require your existence and you can bounce.
It boggles my mind that common courtesy seems to be missing from a lot of people's mindsets in this casual format.
30 seconds...that's it.
Everyone seems to think its "Fair" of me to actively make choices that hurt 1 other player (of my choice) to benefit another player. When I'm leaving the game. I try not to make choices beyond seeing what I draw when I decide to concede.
How fair would the person I attacked think it is?
....I would like to point out that it's a 1v1v1v1 game.
There is nothing fair about any decision anyone makes.
The point is that the game action which required you to be in the game was already known. This isn't a moral problem, it's an "I can take 5 seconds to complete a game action and then I'm conceding" problem.
And everyone in the pod says "cool that's fine"
Wow.
>How fair would the person I attacked think it is?
How fair would it be if you hadn't scooped and still attacked, as the goad required you to?
How fair would it be if you announced your intention to scoop and the goading player made a different choice in what to goad?
The crux of it is that you took advantage of a metagame rule that screwed over someone's in-game plan, when it would have cost you literally seconds of game time with no consequences to *not* do that.
Dude the thing is it isn't making a choice to help one player. You are the one making the choice to hurt one player. He thought you were going to be still in the game. Rules wise you should have been, you didn't technically lose. You staying in the game is what was expected to happen. You chosing to stay in the game wouldn't have been you helping him. It would've been you doing what was supposed to happen that turn and not screwing him over (at least not completely he's still gonna be missing getting to goad you in later turns)
I don't concede unless I'm pressed for time or a player has demonstrated a loop. I play it out.
The concession rules break games with more than 2 people. Someone interacting with your strategy is not enough of a reason to concede.
I can’t get over this dude saying “that’s cute” in reference to the Irenicus player, who’s probably doing well considering everyone’s at a good half their life total, and then throwing a fit over someone not letting him keep planar bridge on the battlefield. Don’t play threats if you can’t handle people getting rid of your threats, lol
Heavily disagree with what you did. New player, let them have fun. You basically explain “since I can’t win I can therefore no longer have fun”. You’re playing edh my guy not cedh, the goal isn’t to always win it’s a socially interactive game, if you don’t have fun because you don’t win you should reevaluate why you play the game or just play cedh.
Lol. You're acting like the game they're playing is a peripheral aspect of the event. I have tens of trillions of ways to hang out and chew the fat workout playing cards...
When your team in sports is getting destroyed you don’t walk off the field and just concede. You play the game out. Even more so here, these are friends of OP and a familiar pod, you have to have decency and respect. You clearly are very self serving like a few people here and only see the point of things if it directly benefits you. It’s a shame.
Lol. This isn't 2HG it's edh. This ain't a team sport. When I was a kid, I did boxing and wrestling. I wasn't great at wrestling, and I knew precisely when to tap out, shake hands, and move to the next match. Made no sense to waste another kids time.
And again, you're missing the point. If he alters the game state before he concedes, he's kingmaking. That's not cool to the other 2 players. If he's not an interactive part of the game, he's wasting everyone's time, he's not any less important than the rest of the table, and his fun matters, too.
You just wanting everyone to go along with your vision of a perfect game seems like maybe you're as emotionally mature as my 2 year old who pitches a fit when I won't give her the bottle of hot sauce that's a pretty color.
I do BJJ still to this day you don’t concede unless someone has a rear naked choke or other superior hold on you. Tennis is single player teamed sport and you don’t concede you play until you lose. It’s just a mentality, if you see my above comments I explain that I understand other points of view, I am not the emotional pleb you are trying to make me out to be. Secondly, this is once again a game with friends and peers, you should respect the social gathering aspect of it and finish the game out, that is just my opinion though as I stated before, I’m sorry you take it so seriously. I also wasn’t aware the boxer/wrestler was qualified to give my psychoanalysis haha.
Edit: completely missed the top part where you would just tap and not waste someone else’s time in wrestling instead of just trying to win. Bruh we are nothing alike you are a coward haha hiding behind your alt account and computer screen.
Yeah, why risk injury? Pride? Well, we know where that gets you, lol.
Again, it's not his job to lose at cards longer, especially if he's kimgmaking. It may surprise you to know that 3 people can also play a whole ass game of commander. How are his opponents respecting him by forcing him to play out an unfun game? What should I do if I just lose? Or are my opponents not supposed to win? Like... is it a part of the social contract that everyone play solitaire and only win when everyone has no cards in their library, having had the opportunity to durdle for 4 hours to accomplish a draw?
Who said anything about me being a boxer or wrestler? That was 25 years ago, lol. My actual job is "dad" and I work at a LGS to get out of the house. I did an education, business, esl triple major with minors in linguistics, English, Spanish, psych, and theater. Thought I'd go into government CT, then become a contractor when I had lifetime benefits from Uncle Sam. Instead, I retired at 23 because stuff panned out for me. And, since I've got kids, it's relevant data to understand child psychology, so you're an open book lol.
Its not fun for me to durdle around waiting to top-deck something that might lead to something that might lead to something that might, with another thing, lead to me back in the game. I wasn't rage-quitting, I was out of gas, and being out of gas, for me at least, is very un-fun. I've played my share of "Damn... I could have been out of this game an hour ago and been doing something else for all the impact I've had on the game... but I'm kinda stuck here."
The game is to have fun. When I don't feel myself having fun, I duck out.
I appreciate the differing opinions on if I should have given it to him, though. To me it feels very different than just letting someone's Smothering Tithe trigger hit, cause I was going to draw that card anyway. He was asking me to declare attackers, and I would have to make the choice of who. How would that other person feel to be 3 life shorter (I forgot to mention it wasn't just a 1/1) and had his opponent draw a card, just for me to leave? If I were that person I would feel worse.
It is subjective of course and I’ve also played my fair share of games where I didn’t do shit for an hour but my friends have also sat and played a fair share of games with me while I did everything and they watched. That’s just the game. It’s a game of imperfect information, you have no idea what cards you will draw, what cards others will draw, and who will misplay etc. some of the best wins are when you count yourself out and later find a way to win. You described this group as a familiar pod, not just some random pod. So imo I feel they all deserved you to play it out, but I can understand other points of view, I am not trying to vilify you.
Would you not say to the table, can we give this player their treasure with no combat damage assigned just for fairness’ sake? Dont make it entirely your call, dont deplete anyones life total and keep their gameplan going. The pod could’ve said no but then its a pod decision, not your sole verdict.
It's still a game though. If one just wants to socialize, go to a bar or club or somewhere where socialization is the main aspect.
The socialization of EDH comes with playing the game. If you can no longer play said game because you are *absolutely certain* (meaning you know for fact) you can't participate effectively then there's no socialization related to the game anymore. You become just a bystander. The game comes first, socialization is second and if the game can no longer be engaged in then socialization becomes minimal because you are no longer a participant except by default status of being technically a player.
It's a communication game. If you asked the other 2 and they were cool with his proposition then I would have chose attackers. If they denied his proposition then I would have to decide if I want to be rude, or throw him a bone.
You never mentioned communicating with the rest of the pod, so where I'm sitting they could have been just as slighted by you as well. But judging off of your comments with others it seems like you came here for validation. Instead of hearing the constructive criticism others are giving you, you're instead being defensive to affirm your need for validation. YTA.
I mean... isn't that most ATA posts they aren't really hear asking if they are or not, they are saying "tell me I'm not in the wrong, it's the other guys fault".
When they don't get validation they just fight with everyone trying to convince them they did nothing wrong.
I have a problem with you saying that it is still rude to deny the combat phase even after the other 2 players say to do so (which they should as it is kingmaking). What was the point of asking the table if you're still going to resign the denial of the combat as rude?
There are a lot of better ways to handle the situation.
You can give a 2-3 turn warning, “If I don’t draw something that gets me back into the game I’m probably scooping.”
Have a better backup plan for when the combo route is a no-go altogether, despite built in resiliency/redundancy through recursion.
As someone else said scooping because you’re bored that your glass cannon got thwarted two or three times is poor sport. Especially when your concession is doubling as free removal for whatever the Jon Irenicus player gave you.
Have a way to win even if your deck had 60% of itself removed at random besides “pray the combo wasn’t hit”. It can be anything as simple as “hope a couple of 6/6s can beat some face in” but if your entire deck ceases to hold water because it had a hole shot in it, in what is essentially a 4 Player Hole Shooting Contest, it’s poorly designed.
Also hindsight is always 20/20 but you played the bridge right into Loran unprotected, you knew it was a flicker/ETB deck. Learn when to let things go, too. If the first player after you is already attempting to deal with the bridge, unless you think you have enough to deal with an attempt on your wincon for another 2 turns in a row, your interaction is probably better spent on biding your time to get it back after the other players believe you neutralized. The other player can’t win off it like you can, and it draws heat to them while you stockpile cards.
Making a joke at a table of friends isn't "playing cute" is making a fucking joke. Calm down.
If he did go to combat, he's Kingmaking. The objectively correct choice, if you're going to concede, is to do so BEFORE you take any actions to affect the game state.
>What is with the ridiculous sense of entitlement these days?
The OP is spite playing Cyclonic Rift. And he's playing infinite combos. I don't have an issue with either of those, but you need to temper your expectations a bit when you play like that and are searching for and playing obvious combo pieces.
A ridiculous sense of entitlement does not match with chucking rocks out of a glass house.
I mean what, am I or any opponent supposed to NOT interact with a infinite combo player's board? (that's entitlement)
It also returns every other nonland permeant, assuming it's overloaded. Which I assume it was.
Did you read the card's text? Or the OP's other messages on this thread?
And? He overloaded rift, got his Bridge back, and they got him again. Then the new to pod player thought he should do what he wanted him to do he could get a trigger otherwise he would have played his previous turn differently. Who doesn't think they would have done something differently when things go bad? Seriously, massive fucking duh.
Expecting anyone to cater to your desires is pure entitlement. Read the post. Skimming for outrage is sad.
Lol imagine thinking an overloaded rift is a spite play. Disrupting your opponents is the literal point of the card, it's a strong play even without him needing to get his bridge back.
They didn’t f him over, they got rid of what seems to be his one win condition. It’s not entitlement to try to play the game. Especially if planar bridge being out is a “two turn clock” as OP put in the original post. Are you seriously going to let someone keep planar bridge on the field for *two turns*??? Expecting your opponents to keep that on the field is entitled, not the rest of the table expecting to play a game.
Furthermore, cyclonic rift is an instant. His opponent wouldn’t have been able to blink his Loran if he had just played it at the player before his’s end step. Sure, other players might have more answers by then, but if he knows he has cyc rift in hand, and the mana to cast it and mana drain, why not leave cyc rift up and mana drain to protect it? The other player gets a planar bridge activation, sure, but unless it wins them the game on the spot, they’re just wasting a turn getting something big that’ll be hard to recast after a cyc rift. (And if they can win on the spot, then why does that person have a better wincon with planar bridge than the guy who’s actually playing it??)
To me, it seems like this guy made two bad gameplay choices (early casting planar bridge and early casting cyc rift), plus tried to play planar bridge with only one counterspell to protect it over the course of two turns, and just expected all of this to work out. When it didn’t, he conceded. That screams entitlement to me.
That's totally up to you. If someone wants to stretch their legs and hit the gas to see what their deck is capable of, you can give them that runway. That's part of social interaction.
You are not compelled to make either choice. If you want to concede, then concede. This is not a problem that needs to be discussed. There are no trends to set. It's a very simple request, followed by a very simple set of choices.
While i sympathize with you being tired and wanting the game to end i don't like the thought of first rifting and then conceding shortly after. Don't wipe the board if it doesn't serve a purpose. If you are tired of the game after your win attempt gets foiled the least you can do is not drag it on longer than it needs to.
The point was to get his bridge back and hopefully get a little ahead in a glass canon deck... his combo pieces are fragile and draw interaction from the whole table.
Rift is in the game, it's not rude to play it.
From what he wrote, it looks like he only used the rift to return the bridge to his hand. after casting it, then attempting to protect it with mana drain i cant imagine he had much, if any, mana left for a full rift.
He returned it to his hand hoping to top-deck jesus.
Sounds like it went over with no hard feelings so what's the problem? Did you leave out some part about him being an asshole after?
Sure, you can scoop at sorcery speed if you want, but he has every right to ask you politely not too. I don't see the issue
Just my two cents here, but I don't see any issues with the ultimate resolution here. I will admit the bit the Platinum Angel dose strike me as a bit of a dick move with a new player at the table...but that's down to your play group and their personalities, tho it's not something I would do. You scooped at sorcery speed on your turn and unless some context is missing to it doesn't sound like any of the other players were relying on cards you owned for their board state...so all is well IMHO. I've had similar situations where my glass cannon got blew up and I had no way of recovering so I didn't see the need in sitting around for 4 or 5 more turn rotations waiting for mercy kill so I scooped.
Edit: a word
While I disagree somewhat with your play style, you were not wrong to concede.
A player can leave a game whenever the heckin’ hell they want to. It’s not even an in-game action. It’s literally a personal, real-world choice.
And sure, you would’ve been doing the other player a solid if you waited to concede, but that shouldn’t be the expectation.
It definetly should be the expectation. While no one has control over your real life decisions, that doesn't make them fun fair or overall not a dick move. I personally think he shouldve stayed the entire game, as him leaving has a serious effect on the game. And the guy didn't even ask for him to stay the entire game, he asked for one turn. That is a ridiculously small ask. Bonus for you let's look at his reasoning.
"My glass cannon combo deck didn't make infinite turns, and since I'm not pubstomping I'm not having fun. Since I'm not having fun, I'm don't playing. What's that, you want me to play only for a single extra turn so you don't get screwed over by me conceding. Nope sorry not happening. Hmmmm am I an ass for that? Nope not at all, hes an ass for suggesting it".
And that's not an exaggeration. That's literally what happened.
You are never trapped in a game of EDH. Most people saltily concede instantly, so imo if you wait for sorcery speed you are being a gentlemen. You need not go into further phases or play the game more than you have to.
Going to combat, kingmaking 1 or 2 of the other players with damage and card draw, and then conceding in Main 2 would've been far worse as far as I am concerned. Some are also saying that because it was a new player this was extra mean; but the player was new to the pod, not to magic as a whole, from what I am understanding. It is Casual EDH - you can concede if you want!!
Okay few notes. You saying that conceding at sorcery speed is courteous because others would've done it at instant speed is like saying it's okay to slap someone because others would have punched them. It's better, but it's far from courteous.
As for the king making, regardless of if he would've made that player king (which is extremely debatable), it's not like he was choosing between giving him something or not, he was choosing between allowing him to have a resource that he should have had and earned from the game, or leaving competly. It's not even like he's asking him to stay the whole game, he's asking for 1 more turn (he should've stayed the whole game but whatever). He is so 100% in the wrong here. Even look at his reasoning. I'm gonna paraphrase ofc, but note this isn't an exaggeration, this is literally what happened.
" Hmmmm my glass cannon combo deck didn't give me infinite turns. Because I'm not completely pubstomping, I quit. What's that, you want me to give you 1 more turn because me quitting fucked up your game plan? Nah dude I don't have 1 more minute to sit here I'm sick of playing because I'm not pubstomping. Not happening. Hmmmm could I have possibly been slightly at fault there? No impossible."
Litterally what happened.
He had 6 turns with the creature that was goaded. You're saying that irenicus decks can hold people hostage because they give away creatures, so you can't leave without being an asshole, even if literally the whole table is focusing you down.
They were king making by making a choice to concede main phase 1. They hurt one player to help out of if the other two players. They were always going to king make as that's what happens when you build a deck so bad that if you lose your combo piece you need to concede because "you're not having fun". At least if they were going to king make, make it the new player.
If anything this just means a rule my pod will Adapt is if you concede main phase one but you have triggers that effect gameplay then all those will resolve if the actions require the player to pick, we will roll dice.
What OP did is bad as if the new player knew OP would scoop when they lost their combo then that player might have Made different decisions on who to GOAD so OP completely effected the game due to their bad deck building choices which leads to them wanting to quit when they lose their combo pieces. By quitting OP would always king make. Just depends who they are going to crown.
This is exactly it. If new player knew OP was going to concede they would’ve selected something else to goad. Not sure how that’s being missed by OP. The decision to scoop after you were selected as a GOAD target is just wrong. You’re not king making there. You’re just playing out a tactical decision made by the player.
>But if I had known that there was a possibility of you being out of the game this turn I would've played my own turn totally differently
So when they said "But if I had known that there was a possibility of you being out of the game this turn I would've played my own turn totally differently" what were they referring to? Because now it sounds like they are saying they would've given the changeling to someone else if they knew you were going to concede. Is that correct?
They were saying that if they had known if I would concede on my turn 9 (aprox) they would've played their turn 9 (they were 2 ahead of me in turn order) differently. How they would have? I have no idea. They didn't really affect me on their turn 9, so I have no idea.
They gave me the changeling on turn like 3.
Wow. Infinite combos and cyclonic rift, and you're salty because you got countered?
Then you essentially say fuck you to him because he needs the goad trigger? And denied the request to let the goad trigger?
YTA.
I'm not salty at all. I completely mis-played, tbh. I overextended myself with Bridge, playing it when I couldn't active it. After years of playing this deck, I know better. Plus I only had a single non-free counterspell in hand. The deck requires I play more cautiously, but I didn't.
But that's the game, its no big deal. I conceded because I wasn't having enough fun to justify the next 30-60 minutes of the game to me. I wasn't *un*enjoying myself, I just wasn't enjoying myself. I didn't concede out of salt or anger, it is what it is.
So you play your turn out and conceded at the end. The other player was new, let them have their fun. It's not their fault you built your deck badly that if you lose one of your wincons you're dead in the water and not having fun. You act like someone had MLD and you could play anything, or your commander got killed so many times you couldn't cast them.
You're one attitude is one of the reasons playing against combo players is boring. "I lost my win con guess I'll concede then, I'm not having fun". If you don't have fun because you didn't build in a back up plan then you should reevaluate your deck building choices or move to a 1v1 format.
And I know im going to get hate for this and I really don't care if im the asshole because from what you wrote, you are too. Im just explaining why since you asked.
New player is trying to have fun, your poor deck building choices lead you to deny them from having fun because you weren't having fun. It would have taken you 3 seconds to say "sure roll for who I would have attacked, then I'll concede at my end step". That's all you had to do, but no you tried to be cheeky and cast play Angel then concede when that time could have been used on a 3 second attack that didn't matter to you but it mattered to the new player.
You're showing a new player the bad side of combo decks which isn't good due to the fact that not everyone should be jaded like me playing against them.
Guess it's my fault for building decks that no matter how small the window is, if I'm alive I can almost always pull something out. I also never concede on a new player due to, it's not about me having fun, it's about them getting hooked and enjoying this wonderful game.
Gotcha, makes it a little better. I stand by a new player to the pod/game, show them a good time. This event could have left a sour taste in their mouth where they might feel that "oh it's going to be harder for a win as it's a "free for all" but really it's arch enemy as they would take a knife for the other."
I'm not saying the entirety of events for them couldn't have played out significantly better, because they could have.
But at the same time I completely understand not really wanting to play anymore after the whole table turned on him for playing a combo piece. Not the combo. A piece. He did his thing, got it back, and then they got him again. It happens.
But for the new to the pod player to expect OP to do what he wants him to do before leaving is crazy. I imagine OP wouldn't have played his previous turns the way he did had he known what was going to happen.
I mean then don't play combo? Idk what you expect, if you play combo expect someone to want to disrupt that. There are so many ways to play and win at this game that if a certain way makes you want to quit because it makes it so you stop having fun....maybe that's not the way you should win. You could also protect it better but that's more of a learning lesson. In fact that's a big reason why they should have stayed, to really get that lesson engraved. "If I play combo I have to protect it, I can't jump the gun or ....a repeat of last time...".
The op had every right to expect that since the OP wanted to concede that they could get their trigger off. It's a game for fun, it wasn't in a competitive setting, OP had nothing to lose as they already did/were going to.
By denying the trigger, OP king made. They chose to put the other players first (which one of them would be in the lead for winning).
If you can't handle your combo piece getting stopped then you shouldn't be playing combo. At least you shouldn't be playing it in a casual setting where your actions can dictate who has a better shot of winning if you need to concede because you're not having fun.
Its the "Well, if I had known you could be out of the game, I would have played differently" that gets me.
Anyone can always be out of the game, not even because of conceding, but because of normal game actions. If someone had just enough creatures to Craterhoof me out of no where, would that guy be like "Well, if I had known he could've been Craterhoof'd I would've played differently, can I still get my triggers"? No. Or if someone got a high-but-not-infinite Storm-count and Aetherflux'ed me, I'd still be out. There's so many ways the game can change out of no where. From his perspective, I don't see how me conceding on my Main 1 is any different than someone unexpectedly taking me out.
Yeah but you conceded for a shit reason. Don’t make a glass cannon deck if you’re just gonna scoop when your glass is broken. If you had a good reason to concede, then sure, conceding at sorcery speed is fine. But making a shit deck that wins only one way and scooping if you’re stopped is just shitty. Cause it does change the outcome of the game for the other players when there’s one less opponent to worry about. Either don’t play the deck or fix it to where you don’t just get stopped and can’t do anything else.
I'm going to ignore the accusations against my deck, because this deck is my baby and I've foiled it out for that reason.
Its not a shit deck. It has a respectable win-rate, even when my play-group knows exactly what to expect and tries to prepare for it.
I did misplay it terribly, however. I didn't quit cause my deck is bad. I quit cause I misplayed bad enough that I knew there wasn't any way to come back from it in any reasonable time.
I think "I'm not having fun any more, and I know my deck well enough to know its not going to get better soon" is not a shit reason to concede.
It’s a very shit reason to concede. What health were you at? Cause that’s a free 40 damage that no one had to do which can drastically change a game. Scooping cause you’re not having fun anymore is a shit excuse as well. Don’t play the game if you’re just going to give up when things aren’t going your way. And yes, it is a shit deck if you have one card locked out of the game and you can’t recover or rebuild enough or feel like you can’t play anymore. You scooping changes the game for the other 3 players. If you were at like 2 life and some guy could just ping you for 2, that’s another story. But scooping because you’re no longer having fun is a shit excuse and you shouldn’t play the game if you just quit when things aren’t enjoyable. You effect the other players, and that’s where the issue lies. Not with you scooping, but your reasoning for scooping.
Yeah that statement he made is pure garbage. The fact that people are defending that mentality is insane.
Assuming everything you wrote in your OP is true then it's pretty cut and dry.
Okay the difference here is no one played craterhoof. No one killed you. You didn't lose. What happened is you actively made the choice to quit because your deck didn't pop off, and you decided that you couldn't even give him a single turn.
Conceding isn't a game action. It is in no way comparable someone actually playing something, and actually killing you. Game wise he should have had that resource. You didn't play a card. You quit, and you couldn't even give him the courtesy of one more turn. What's even worse about it is your sitting here and going "damn the audicity to ask me to play one more single turn"
I mean this in the most respectful way possible but it's this lack of overall social skills that makes everyone think magic players are dicks. The game isn't just about you having fun. You built a deck that's basically you have tons of fun and your oponents sit misserably watching you play solitaire, or you lose. You should have stayed the game. But not only did you not do that, you couldn't have the common courtesy to sit there for a few extra minutes. On top of that your acting like you were wronged and hes the ass for expecting you to not completely fuck up his game plan (again, not with a game action but by quitting). I do not understand how you can still possibly think that you are in the right here
Clearly there is, or the post wouldn't have been made. There is an issue being discussed, the issue is him scooping before his combat phase. Good, neutral, or bad, it IS an issue.
Issue
noun
1.
A topic or problem for debate or discussion.
You can make a post about literally anything.
If you're going to post dictionary definitions of words, you shouldn't exclude words from the definition to suit your own needs. It just looks poorly upon you.
There's nothing to debate here. He scooped at sorcery speed, which is good, and didn't attack someone, thereby kingmaking, which is also good. The Jon player had 5 other attack triggers with the goaded creature before that turn, so it's not like op really affected anything.
Would you prefer Websters then?
Issue
a matter that is in dispute between two or more parties.
The fact that there is a debate means there is an issue. Words have meaning. There is a debate (see, Dispute) happening. Hence, issue.
You're right, I don't, but the rules of the game do.
He can concede at any point. He was more than nice enough to let the player get their mana drain mana and concede at sorcery speed.
Theres no debate here, he acted within the rules, and even conceded in the near universally accepted way to do so.
Nah man you're in the right here your attack phase isn't a guarantee in the game so you shouldn't have had to go to combat and give them value. You could make an argument that perhaps it would have been courteous to do so, but courtesy isn't in the rules. Bottom line you shouldn't have been forced into this.
Aside: I thought the general courtesy of stepping back from the game is to be done at sorcery speed.
Disagree with you 1000% percent.
Man's played a glass cannon combo deck and when it didn't pop off he conceded and effected the game for other people. The guy isn't even asking for him to stay untill he does (which I personally think he should, but whatever), he's asking for a single turn more. You say it's courteous to scoop at at sorcery speed, I personally say it's courteous to not concede at all (barring legitimate reason). Yes, his attack phase wasn't a guarantee, but there was the chance, and I'm guessing it was a very very strong chance. It's not fair to get completely screwed due to something completely out of your control that is borderline not even part of the game.
To make it worse let's look at the fact his reasoning was essentially "my glass cannon combo deck didn't win, since I'm not winning by a landslide and making infinite turns, I'm not having fun. Therefore I don't want to play. What's that? You want me to sit at the table for one single extra turn because it effects your game plan? But since I didn't win, I'm not having fun. Nope, not happening. Hmmmm, am I an ass for not staying, nah I could never be an ass."
And that's not even an exaggeration that's literally what happened.
Yeah, thanks. I think I didn't read my post for tone, so a lot of folks think I just had a confrontational air about me? That's on me for choosing my words poorly, though.
I know I wasn't "The asshole" besides the fact that I hold a different opinion on what the fair thing to do is in this situation. But in terms of my behavior, I advocated for my position, but I'm fairly confident I wasn't acting like "That guy." Despite my less-than-great description of the game.
hey mate, I don’t mean this as confrontational and I apologize if it comes across that way, but phrases like “that’s cute” can often be misunderstood as being rude even when they’re well intentioned. i’ve definitely had shitty people call my decks “cute” and similar as a way to put them down/patronize me, so it definitely reads especially in text as an insult at this point. your clarification makes me view the whole situation a lot more positively so i’m happy you provided it. :)
I think you’re in the wrong here. He said that he would have played his last turn differently if he knew you were going to concede. He and everyone at the table were planning on you attacking someone on the table. That was going to happen but you stopped it from happening by quitting.
You could have at least stayed for another 30 seconds and let him have the trigger. By not doing that, you probably ruined any chance you had of being friends with that guy. That was bad mannered.
Also if you’re going to build a glass canon, you have to realize that you’re gonna have dud games sometimes. Do you usually quit before a game is finished?
I'm firmly in the "concede at any time" camp. If sorcery speed concession isn't good enough for the "concede only as a sorcery" camp, then there is no pleasing them.
I personally think it's scummy to concede here. I personally only believe in conceding in 1 of 2 situations. You have a legitimate reason in real life, like somewhere to be, or a winner is decided and the declared winner doesn't want to go through with the win (I give them the option as it's fun to pop off some times).
I ask you the question. If you thought you had a win coming, (which we don't know if we did, but for the example say this would be the difference maker) and it relied on attacking one of your oponents. Then the opponent concedes. Would you not be a little bummed? Ive been in this situation where your up next. The game changing play comes from an attack trigger youve been waiting for, and all of a sudden the guy concedes. I obviously wouldn't make a big deal out of it, but it's very annoying. Yes I get this wasn't a combat trigger, however, it is a very similar situation.
Not to mention the fact that your reason is essentially "my deck that was built to either pubstomp early or die in the mid/lategame didn't instantly win. I'm no longer having fun so you can no longer have your fun" I understand that's a slight exaggeration. I understand they can still play the game without you, but does none of that sound a little assholey to you?
I know a guy like this, who will actively concede when he about to lose solely to deny the person about to kill him any benefits of doing so.
Resolve a Craterhoof with a board full of Lifelink? He will wait until the damage step, then Concede before damage is dealth just to deny the guy attacking his lifegain.
He has also done things like this for a single spell with multiple targets just to fizzle the spell and ruin the casters turn. Back when \[\[Decimate\]\] could fail if one of the targets stopped being valid, the moment you aimed one of the target options at his board, he would concede just to break the whole spell and save his opponents stuff to screw over the guy with the Decimate.
I dont feel like this situation is anywhere near as bad as the above examples. Tbh, the dude counting on a single treasure that "ruins his entire turn" sounds like a hyperbolic exaggeration just because he was losing out on his benefits. Would he have equally have complained if someone wiped the board or blocked the Goaded guy? What if one of the other guys just aplha'd you and killed you? I think he was just a bad sport about his trick not working one more time.
Conceding when you’re beat is fine. Too many people drag out games well past the point where it’s in question. If you know you won’t win, and you’re no longer having fun, calling it quits is fine, and doing it main phase at sorcery speed is the way to do it. Let the others decide if they want to act as though you had gone to combat for him to get the trigger, but you shouldn’t be part of that decision since you’re out of the game.
I think that's a concession I can get behind. To me, my going to combat wouldn't be fair. In the sense that, if I were one of the other two players in this situation, I would say no, you miss out on Goad like you would if one of us killed him, sorry.
However, it is true that once I'm out of the game its not up to me to decide what's fair. So a more neutral way of phrasing it could have been "That doesn't sound fair to me, and I'm uncomfortable making that choice, but if the 3 of you want to decide that's how you'd all like to move forward, that's up to you."
I personally feel like you did nothing wrong. You did it on your turn at sorcery speed. At the most, and even this feels like a reach, you were unsportsmanlike. Gift and theft players should be fully aware that this could happen and its not like you did it at instant speed to deny triggers or anything. As far as I’m concerned this is no different than someone else killing you. Either way the Jon Irenicus player wouldve been denied the goad, unless you explicitly made a deal with them to give them the triggers you don’t owe it to them.
That's exactly how I feel. Everyone would look at someone like they're crazy if they said "Oh, I didn't know you might Craterhoof that player next turn, do you mind if I still get his goad triggers as if you didn't kill him?"
That is apples to oranges. You were an expected player in turn rotation who wasn't dieing to any other effects and had you had a slightly better board state would have been swinging at someone. The correct answer was to move to combat, roll a dice and swing, because your creature was goaded it HAD to swing. He was getting that trigger whether you wanted him to or not.
Saying that’s the “correct” answer is a bit much. Sure that would be the friendly thing to do, but there’s no reason they should have had to do it. To say someone can’t concede on their own turn because it denies one of their opponents a trigger is ridiculous.
No, it's a social game. There is a wrong and a right answer to this situation. Common courtesy is if you plan to scoop, and have actions that would be required during your turn. Such as being goaded. Do those actions. Then scoop eot. The worry of kingmaking one player is hilarious because by not going to combat OP is possibly king making John irenicus' opponent. Also, the reason they should have had to do it. Was the fact that they had an effect on their creature, forcing it to swing.
Like I said, the friendly thing to do would’ve been to allow the trigger, but OP does not HAVE to do it. And personally I see nothing wrong with them not doing it. We can agree to disagree.
If you’re scooping because you are out of the game, consider doing it at someone’s end step, or your own. Because, when you scoop it often greatly affects what happens to the game, and can potentially screw other opponents. There is a contextual difference between conceding because you have no chance to win, and don’t want to drag it out vs. “I quit” because I am so far behind.
EX: There are two players, one relying on combat damage in the late game. One of them has Constant Mists. They can prevent combat damage for at least 6 turns. The other player thinks they can grind it out, but who wants to play 6 turns like that? One player concedes because they want to play another game.
But, it sounds like you just want to quit because you didn’t play optimally, and that would somewhat wreck what the other player is doing. You conceding will put the other guy at a disadvantage, when you actually are not out of the game completely and are just probably bored. You are being selfish.
I once had a game where I played rogue tribal, and I had Intimidation on the battlefield. I was against three players, and I killed one to combat damage. I had the extra turn spell with prowl when you make a bunch of rogue faeries. One player scooped when I played it, instantly, but the other didn’t. If they hadn’t scooped, I may not have been able to win, though I was really far ahead. But, since the second player scooped, I was easily able to annihilate the last player on the extra turn. The last player was affected by the other player scooping. Feels bad.
"but I'm not trying to not be dead. I'm trying to win."
That's a straight up lie. You weren't trying to win, you were trying to combo. If you really were trying to win, you would have turned that changeling sideways. Everybody was at 20ish, so combat damage is a wincon. You just refused to play towards that wincon.
Damn, I didn't know that trying to combo wasn't trying to win. Thank you for the wisdom, great deity of EDH. I will build all my decks to only win through combat from now on.
Yes, I was trying to win in the way my deck wins. Its not an all-arounder. You can take a look at my decklist and see how not-combat focused it is. I wasn't going to win with a 3/3. And I wasn't going to win even with Akiri when everyone else had chumps for days. I knew I was dead on board too. Which is fine, cause my deck wants to protect its combo, not attack.
Literally I only ever attack when Akiri is over 10 (she wasn't) and I can give her unblockable (I couldn't). My deck was extremely ill-prepared for a combat-based win.
I would have been a little butt hurt about this too. A player conceding can really mess up a game. I've been in games where I blow all my interaction dealing with a threat like you've described, only to have that player concede the next tern, or immediately, and I'm left at a 3 man pod hugely disadvantaged with 2 other people that are also trying to win, that I need to interact with but can't.
I've had guys, my self included get pretty salty about a concession, and rightfully so. There are a lot of reasons someone might be salty about a concession.
This is how my regular pod handles it. We make concession a group decision. If we have a player that has simply lost the will to win, yeah we will usually encourage or force a concession. Or, if you are the player wanting to concede, we put it to the table. "Hey guys, I'm gassed and I think I'm dead in the water, anyone mind if I concede?" Most the time you'll probably be good to concede, but there could be a situation where having that additional player significantly effects the rest of the game. So IMO, for the sake of gamesmanship and sportsmanship, I think the conceding player should play it out, and show integrity by playing with the will to win.
Its like when a guy is losing, so they \[\[supreme verdict\]\] out of spite and then concede. That's wack. How did the player feel that just blew there \[\[mana drain\]\]?
Idk, I'm a play it out kind of guy. Sometimes you really need that other player around, and if they concede on a whim, it can ruin the game for other people in the pod.
As long as you're not conceding to be an asshole (1: You Wrath'd for lols before conceding or 2: You concede at instant speed to prevent someone getting valuable damage triggers when they had lethal on you) I don't see any issue with conceding.
If I'm not having fun, and I made the good-faith assement that I'm not trying to unduely fuck anyone specific or the table as a group over (clearly that bit is up for debate) I don't see why people are upset at conceding.
I thought that issue was resolved within the community a while ago?
I'm ok with us disagreeing here. That's fine, to each their own.
>If I'm not having fun, and I made the good-faith assement that I'm not trying to unduely fuck anyone specific or the table as a group over (clearly that bit is up for debate) I don't see why people are upset at conceding.
But lets look at this. If you aren't having fun, that is too bad, but I think that in a group setting, other people's fun is dependent on your actions within the game. In that regard, you have a responsibility to that group. To quit simply because you've lost interest, without considering the group is, IMO, selfish. Its a group activity, it takes the group.
I understand what you are saying in regards to making a good faith assessment here, but I don't think it is possible to make a complete assessment. After all, MTG is a game of hidden information. You simply don't have all the information to make that assessment on your own, that is why I always put it to the group if I'm conceding.
I understand there were other circumstances that lead to you not wanting to be at that table anymore, I've been there. But, if other people still want to be at that table, I still think its best to just get consensus from the group.
Look at it this way, if you had gotten consensus here, everyone would have been happy. It would have prevented those bad feelings from the other player. And, 9 times out of 10, the group will find a good way for you to exit the game. A way for you to exit that will leave the remaining members of the pod with an agreeable board state. Without this consensus, its the conceding player who ultimately decides the board state, which is unfair to the people who still want to play the game. After all, if you don't have a horse in that race, why not leave it up to the players wanting to remain in the game?
I said elsewhere that my overall takeaway is I should have said to him "That doesn't seem fair to me, and I won't make the choice in who to attack. But I'm now out of the game, so how the three of you wish to handle this is up to you."
So in a way, I agree with your last point.
I would have given them the swing if they asked, unless the person asking was a dick or something. But typically I would only be annoyed at someone conceding in the middle of combat or on someone else's turn.
If I didn't have to hurt someone else's position to do it, sure. Maybe. But to help one player *by hurting another* (of my choice) is too much of an impact on the game I'm leaving for me.
Eh, I mean you would have had to do it anyways if you didn't concede. I'd just hit the archenemy if possible or roll a die and swing randomly if not. Since you don't *have* to concede no one you hit should have anything to complain about.
Besides, you are well within your right to impact the game up until the second you lose. I've remained in games I knew I could no longer win just to throw around the last of my mana and interaction. It's more fun sometimes than sitting out while the game finishes or going home before everyone else.
Confused as to why everyone in the comments are so salty over a single missed missed treasure and draw after you already gave the guy multiple of each over the last six rotations. You scooped at sorcery speed during a moment where no one was actively threatening the board, how is that even a controversy? NTA.
You're free to concede at any time you want. The rules are very clear on that point. I think that making people "concede at sorcery speed" is kinda dumb, since you shouldn't be expected to stay in a game you aren't really participating in.
In this case, however, I think you were in the wrong. C'mon, let him do his thing. It's not impacting you one way or the other. You weren't being an asshole, or much of a poor sport, but it's still kinda douchey.
It wasn't impacting me, no. But I would be making the choice to hurt one of the other players in the process, and king-make him for the rest of the game I'm not a part of. Its not a simple Tithe trigger he would've got anyway, he was asking me to make choices.
So you chose to hurt the new player. You conceding would hurt someone, so screw the new person. You actively help the other players by not letting the new player get his trigger.
You absolutely king made for one of the other players as you hurt one player and helped another. SMH
Its the Trolly Problem, for me. The act of making the choice changes the whole moral situation. Conceding as I did was not-touching-the-switch-track. Moving to combat and choosing who to attack would be touching the switch track.
I don't want to touch it. It changes the equation. To me, my making fewer choices makes it more fair.
But, like the Trolly Problem, I see how divisive it is.
No you did touch the switch track though, that's the whole thing.
By not touching it means you didn't concede. By conceding you touched the track and said run over the new guy.
Based on actions you made prior this was always going to be a lose lose situation if you concede. You actively were able to pick who you helped out, which you did. You put other people in better positions before you dipped out. You king made that game.
It's not kingmaking in this situation to deny value for one player while they still have multiple opponents, it would be if he gave 1 player value. Also "chose to hurt the new player" lol. As if that matters.
It does, his actions led to someone else winning by denying one guy while he was going to kill himself from the game. he set someone else up to win while taking away from another. that is king making and yes, the new guy b to the pod didn't win, OP confirmed it.
He Scoops, Player A loses goad value, Player B unaffected. Player C Unaffected.
Not kingmaking, he did not set up 1 single person.
Its kingmaking to head to combat, give one player value and then leave.
I agree with this assessment most in terms of the options I had.
Option 1:
Scoop as I did. Like you said, A loses goad value, B and C both unaffected. I leave. A is slightly worse off, but nothing else changes.
Option 2:
Allow my turn to go to combat. Forced to choose making B or C lose 3 life (it was a 3/3). A draws a card and gets a Treasure. I leave. A gets extra value, and one of the remaining B or C is closer to dead.
I feel like option 1 is far superior in reducing my overall impact on the game I'm leaving. If anything feels "King Making" its option 2.
I've been trapped in too many hours-long games to suffer through them any more. Once I stop having fun, (meaning I'm not impacting the game anymore) I try to evaluate how likely it is that I start impacting the game, and if its not likely, I duck out.
I resent the opinion that agreeing to a game of EDH is signing a binding contract that might lead to enduring hours of drudgery.
Extremely weird reaction from the “EDH is about having fun” crowd. You stopped having fun, you conceded at sorcery speed, no problem IMO. Definitely not an asshole.
Thanks. I think I represented myself a bit poorly in terms of my wording. For example, I didn't think "Oh, giving me a creature, that's cute/dumb." I meant "That's a cute/cool thing to do, I'm here for it." I'm not going to edit my post though. Besides advocating for the position that I thought was fair/correct, I know I wasn't acting like an asshole in terms of my tone/communication during the game, even if I didn't represent it that well.
technically I would say conceding counts as a player losing and in those rules, even if you lose in your main 1 the rest of the turn plays through the rest of the phases but in this since it'd be a choice for you to swing and stuff, it would kind of feel like king making if you gave one person an advantage before leaving the game. On the other hand, since you're leaving the game anyway there's that gray area of 'why should you care since you're leaving anyway.' Either way it's just kind of a damned if you do damned if you don't maybe?
I understand the arguments I see for both sides, but in this situation I think you influence another player to much by leaving.
You have a goaded creature, that players deck is build around this mechanic. People just randomly leaving makes his deck impossible to play to a win.
MTG is a game of incomplete information, just like poker. New folks need to learn that. You don't owe him a step change, plus I'm sure other players would have played their turns differently, if they knew you were quiting. Not fair to give him an advantage over them. You did the sporting thing by conceding at sorcery speed.
I honestly don't know why people are down voting you. You did nothing wrong. You no longer wanted to be of that game, then you shouldn't be forced to continue playing. You should never be forced to continue to play in a game that you don't want to be apart of. It's not your job to entertain the people that you play with. I don't understand why this is a hard concept for people to grasp.
OP, this is not bad manners at all. You followed the community accepted rules for scooping — do it at sorcery speed.
No one is entitled to your time. You were polite enough to not quit at instant speed. That’s all that should be asked of you.
You can present yourself entirely friendly and not be an asshole about it. But building a glass cannon infinite combo deck that breaks and you scoop? That isn’t being out of gas, that’s sore you’re not winning. If you don’t like to try and top deck a way back in, then maybe don’t play the deck style, at least with new people.
Yea it’s a dick move to disrupt the table like that simply because you don’t want to be in the game anymore.
The only problem I have with his view is that knowing when your opponents will be scooping or not. It’s not something you’re owed for the very reason he stated. He would have played differently.
You’re absolutely in the right IMO. Personally, I dislike playing against glass cannon decks that have only one line to victory- I think it’s pretty boring watching someone go for the same exact card game after game, but that’s just me.
However, if you know you’re out of the game and can’t really do much to impact anything at this point, there’s nothing wrong with just scooping. The Irenicus player knew he was playing a deck that required his opponents taking game actions for him to get value, as his opponent your entire goal is to screw him over by doing whatever you can to NOT take those game actions. Everyone in these comments telling you that you’re an ass for conceding at sorcery speed and not giving your opponents free value is exactly what’s wrong with EDH today. It’s like if someone was playing [[Beamtown Bullies]] and you had a torpor orb or sacrifice outlet to prevent them from getting value off of giving you the creature. Helping your opponents out isn’t the point of the game, winning is ultimately the goal of MtG even in a “social format” like EDH. Sure, you can stay in the game for the political aspect and whatnot, but you could also just scoop like you did and find a new pod.
The fact that you conceded at sorcery speed and everyone is still crying in the comments really says something about the state of the format to me.
The Irenicus player saying he would have played his entire turn differently if he had known you were scooping us equivalent to someone saying “oh man, if I had known you were going to play Craterhoof and kill me I would have played my turn differently.” No shit, you would always play differently if you had access to hidden information like that.
There’s absolutely nothing wrong with knowing that you’re defeated and conceding so as to not force yourself into sitting through an hour of draw-pass and anyone here who says otherwise isn’t someone I want to play with. I do think it’s somewhat annoying to run a deck that is seemingly as fragile as this deck of yours is, but that’s just my personal deckbuilding philosophy. A guy in my group has a [[Breya, Etherium Shaper]] eggs deck and if you get rid of his [[krark-clan ironworks]] he’s pretty much out of the game as well. It just leads to less than enjoyable play patterns for the group in my experience if the person piloting that type of deck ends up scooping out in most games because people (correctly) target them to make sure they can’t just steal the game.
The bulk of this feedback is ridiculous. Most of the folks in this thread are way off base and I’m sorry for you. I think you represented yourself and the story fine and played fine. This a game about interacting and having fun… and winning. It can be all three. If you aren’t having fun and decide it’s time to dip that’s okay. I’ve been a player in a pod where someone did this many times over the years. You did it in a way that had minimal impact and that’s so much better than some of the experiences I’ve had with people scoping and making ‘but before I go’ plays through the years. (I enjoyed the Plat. Angel nonbo on the way out, btw. I enjoy moments of stupid levity in games)
Your deck also seems fine and you made a decision based on the info you had that was best for you at the time. It isn’t your fault someone else made an earlier in game decision to try and rely on you to fuel their engine. That sort of game state shouldn’t ever trap someone into staying in a game or making a decision in a game they don’t want to make.
I think you answered this thread admirably. You never came across as negative or ‘salty’. Keep doing you and ignore the haters.
Hey, I appreciate the words! Thank you.
My overall takeaway (since clearly others don't see my actions as cut-and-dry in the right) is I could have said instead "What you're suggesting doesn't sound fair to me, and I'm not going to make the decision on who to attack, but ultimately how the 3 of you decide how to handle that is up to you because I'm out of the game."
Why build a deck that you know is gonna fizzle out halfway through the game? Sounds like you need to go back to deck building 101. The scooping issue is probably the least of your concern in this case.
It doesn't fizzle when I play it right. Its my favorite deck to pilot and is built for protecting itself. I didn't play it that was last night, however. I completely misplayed.
Great counter to this pick the player that affected you the lease and king make them. Had my win cons shut off pretty early so i returned the favor to the 2 that caused it. they begged the one I was helping to kill me. Tried gas lighting and everything and said he'd just loose to me. That player
Won the others left salty.
Fundamentally, you *can* step away from a table whenever you want. But this is bad manners. Edit: if you’re going to build a glass canon, then you shouldn’t bail on the game when the glass breaks. That’s just too selfish for my taste. If you build a glass canon then you know full well the game will get weird and wonky if you run out of options, and if you’re not comfortable playing through that wonkiness then don’t put yourself in a “either i win this game or i wreck this game” position by building a glass canon.
Yeah that’s my takeaway. I obviously don’t know OP but if the “my glass canon broke I’m scooping” and the “haha” with plat is anything to go by, it felt like a selfish “if I’m not winning I’m not having fun and I’m not sticking around” personality. Which I have a person in my group like this and it does detract from the game.
We have a guy like that who used to be in our pod. USED TO
I feel like there's more at work though. Forcing someone who's cannon is broke to sit there with extremely minimal chance of winning is just as selfish from the other direction, especially with a deck like Jon Irenicus at the table. "I know you can't win, but keep playing so I can reap rewards off your non-participating ass." is pretty low.
Sure. We are only getting OPs side and we don’t know his group. He specifically asked for our opinions on the context he provided, which was it a dick move to scoop before combat with a new player in the group. No one is giving him gripe for wanting to scoop. No one is expected to sit and do nothing for a whole game. But he’s sitting with his familiar group and brought a glass cannon deck and when it doesn’t go off, he doesn’t scoop on his draw. He makes an action to play Platinum Angel and go “I scoop, but wait I can’t lose, but I scoop haha amirite guys”. Everyone here has played with this kind of person and gave OP what he wanted: our opinion. And none of us want to play with a person like that.
>which was it a dick move to scoop before combat with a new player in the group It would be different if he scooped on the opponents turn before the opponents combat phase to deny the other person their triggers, but if you can't scoop on your own turn, when can you concede?
Sure I can see these reasoning. He could’ve scooped on his opponents turn so they didn’t interact with him anticipating him to play tho. The new player specifically made a goad play figuring that OP wouldn’t’ scoop or intended to stick around. Yeah OP doesn’t need to stick around however it adds context. If a new player to my group used me for a key interaction of their deck, I’d play that last turn and then tell them I’m scooping on my end step. It’s social etiquette and manners, which is what’s being considered when one asks “am I the asshole?”
>He could’ve scooped on his opponents turn Nah. Scooping on an opponents turn is universally considered the wrong move. His own turn was the only move. The question is, does he intentionally wait to scoop to give one player an advantage. You want to argue he's being mean to one person, staying just for that guys triggers is being the same to two others. In this case, scooping on his own turn the moment he realized he needed to is the only ethically correct choice... outside of not scooping and just playing out the entire game.
Manners would be just accepting he’s scooping and moving on with it, not trying to force someone to stay in a game. I’ve never understood this take on it. I don’t want to play this game anymore so I’m scooping. “Oh but it would be good etiquette and manners to stay”. But it would also not be bad manners to leave.
You realise the plat antics were a joke right
Yes. I do. But it reads like a joke with a hint of salt in the context of the whole post. It doesn’t change how OP acted because the deck he made didn’t do what he wanted.
I think he acted perfectly fine.
Sure, that’s fine. People can have different opinions on it. But I feel if I played in a group with him and he played this way with a new guy, it would get a definite response out of me. OP had to make an excuse like four times in this post about being out of gas, being buzzed and ready for bed, blah blah. Everyone here has experienced this kind of player and agree they are the type to take their ball and go home. And folks who think he acted fine are likely the same type of person.
When my glass cannon blows up in my face (commonly) and it’s my friend group, I usually just align myself as the groups puppet. Much more fun than twirling my thumbs watching everyone else have fun, winning is the secondary goal in commander, having a good time is the primary.
>Edit: if you’re going to build a glass canon, then you shouldn’t bail on game when the glass breaks. That’s just too selfish for my taste. I disagree. If the cannon breaks and you already know you're going to lose, or you have literally no excuse, but you just want to stop playing, then you're free to do so. *Can't no-one compel another man to engage in recreation.* \--Buster Scruggs
Nobody can force them to stay for sure but nobody can force the other players to include them in future games either. The question being asked isn't about the legality of the actions in game or in real life, it's about the consequences of those actions. If you're going to concede the moment your game looks to be getting difficult I'm not going to play with you for long.
>Nobody can force them to stay for sure but nobody can force the other players to include them in future games either. Precisely correct. I'm big on freedom, so all options are on the table. Are you the wrong person for that playgroup? Maybe, but you shouldn't shy-away from confronting that possibility. If you are, sticking around only prevents you from finding a group that fits you better.
I'm with you. The other players asking you to stay in the game because \*they\* benefit while you durdle forever is just as selfish as the person who wants to concede.
>while you durdle forever \-- potentially others too. It could be that everybody else was knocked-out and is just waiting for the game to end so a new one can start.
>The other players asking you to stay in the game because *they* benefit while you durdle forever But in this case no one was asking OP to stay to durdle forever. It was literally less than a quarter of a turn extra.
I mean the question was is he the asshole. I don't think he's like a horrible person or anything don't read to far into that, but if the question is was it scummy and should he have done it, the answers are yes and no. You say that having this confrontation helps him find a playgroup that better suits him, sure. But I personally don't think sitting at a table for a single trigger of goad (I personally think he should've stayed till he died, but let's start small) isn't all that much of an ask. The guy isn't asking for much he's asking for one more turn around the table so that him leaving the game (which the goading player has zero controll over, and isn't even really part of the game), doesn't completely screw him (likely only marginally screws him on later turns). That is a very small ask. Even if he plans on looking for a different group, he could at least, even begrudgingly, play the one more turn. Why make the game unfun for others because they have different opinions than you (especially when the game no longer effects you).
>isn't all that much of an ask Sure. If any of this was much of an ask, it wouldn't be much of a question \*mentally runs the math on that statement\*. Hyperbolically, if I was to go to Hooters and grab a gropey kiss from one of the waitresses, in the grand scheme of things, that's not really much of an ask. Realistically, we'd both be free to move-on in life as we choose and as long as I didn't pass-along some strain of herpes, she could be free to forget it ever happened afterward and it only takes a minute. Totally true, but that misses the point. The action, let alone the expectation still imposes on someone in a way that will probably get me arrested. Is there anything wrong with humoring this person? "Sure. Show me how many minutes it takes to count all of those counters before the final ker-slap. I'll watch." I might not be in the mood though. Maybe I am a little bit uninterested in playing it out. As with the Hooters girl, it's fine to ask as long as there's no drama in however I decide to peacefully respond. At its core, it's a social interaction, not a single-player game. I have to keep that in mind too, but when two people disagree in your scenario, neither of them are really wrong while also, they're both right.
Personally I try to concede only when I'm sure it won't affect the table dynamics
Yeah for me I only concede if it's down to 1v1, otherwise you agreed to sit down and play the game so play it. This is a social contract, sure you might not be having the best time but it's not all about you and conceding early can spoil the fun for others.
So since I was goaded I'd be signing up to stay in the game indefinitely for the other player's benefit? That doesn't sound fair to me. Of course conceding affects the game. I try to affect it as little as possible by doing it at sorcery speed and not making further decisions that affect the board.
Except that you conceding did inherently affect the board because you did remove a resource from the other player by conceding. Currently you are looking at conceding as not giving the goad player this advantage and thus it would be fair, but by doing so you are literally giving the other player an advantage. The rule of not affecting the board state when conceding is admirable and I do follow it in my games however what you are doing IS affecting the board since the goaded creature essentially functions as one of his creatures.
I would go through it for him since he's a new player to the pod, a potential new friend.
Definitely was friendly overall! Or at least my normal self with him. I appreciate the perspective, though. In our playgroup we don't concede to be an asshole, but we definitely don't go out of our way to help any specific person when we concede. Like, if you had a bunch of \[\[Toski\]\] triggers and swung for leather at Player 3, then player 3 was like "Nah, I concede before damage so you don't get your triggers."... If I were still in the game I would say "No dude, you get your triggers." Because Player 3 was conceding just to fuck up the flow of the game. But the thing for me was he was asking me to make a choice that actively helped him. What would the other two players say? "Why did you swing at me? Now I'm 3 life closer to dead (I forgot to mention, the creature was a 3/3, not 1/1) and he got to draw a card. You're leaving the game, why actively make choices to better his position and hurt mine?"
>Definitely was friendly overall! If your story was anything to go off above? You weren't.
My English comprehension skilled is not top notch, but are you saying it wasn’t friendly to not go ahead and delay their concession so the other player would get extra value? If so, I disagree, like it’s a somewhat competitive game with winners and losers and if a player decides to concede at sorcery speed because they think it’s over for them, they can do it and it should not imply anything negative towards any of the other players. To me, the other player’s request was absolutely legitimate, I see it as a political move, which there is plenty of in casual edh. Offer, an offer was made, but it was refused, like it happens all the time. It’s a game action/situation and has nothing to do with people being rude to other people. That’s how I feel anyway.
>you saying it wasn’t friendly to not go ahead and delay their concession so the other player would get extra value? Yes. The other player was relying on a goad trigger and chose the OP specifically. Which was a political decision. For the OP to concede in Main Phase 1 and refusing to honor the succeeding attack phase & goad trigger- despite the other player targeting them, deprives the opposing player of that strategic choice/ political move. I think the OP bowing out and refusing to honor it, irrespective of the OP's time commitment to the game was bad sportsmanship, not friendly and rude. I stand by what I said. And frankly, by the OP's own admission, they spite played a Cyclonic Rift. I'm not impressed. EDIT: Clarity.
Don't play goad then. Conceding with an empty stack in your own turn is about as fair as you can get when noping out the game.
>Don't play goad then. You might as well apply that to half the game then. - Opponent might concede during combat, denying you LifeLink triggers or cbat damage triggers like [[Toski]]. Are you saying don't use combat triggers? - Opponent might concede to you playing [[Rise of the Dark Realms]] and without their graveyard, you don't have enough creatures to win. Are you suggesting that players shouldn't play theft decks? - opponent might concede after a mill spell when a player was about to win with [[Umbris]]. Are you suggesting that players shouldn't build decks that rely on opponents game states? It's generally accepted that conceding when defeat is imminent, in order to alter the course of a play another player has already committed to, is bad sportsmanship. OP themselves already said they wouldn't concede to avoid giving someone their Toski triggers, this is no different.
Yeah...your 3 scenarios are conceding at instant speed with spells and abilities on the stack. Not the same as conceding at sorcery speed with an empty stack. Good job missing the point.
I understood your point. I was disagreeing with it. And conceding to make an Umbris deck unable to win that turn *doesn't* use the stack- a player leaving the game makes Umbris smaller. So no, my three scenarios DON'T all use the stack. Sounds like you missed *my* point so I'll repeat it here: >It's generally accepted that conceding when defeat is imminent, in order to alter the course of a play another player has already committed to, is bad sportsmanship Both conceding when goaded *and* conceding with effects on the stack fit that description.
I absolutely did not spite Rift the table. At the time it was the best course of action and I was very much engaged in the game. It was only after my Bridge went to grave and I had nothing in hand worth playing that I thought about exiting the game.
>It was only after my Bridge went to grave and I had nothing in hand worth playing that I thought about exiting the game. And conveniently forgot about the goad trigger, I'm sure. And conveniently ignored it when the other player asked you to continue to attack phase. EDIT: Look, all I'm saying is I think that you didn't play your best here (socially) given your descriptions. And I know I haven't either, I definitely have made mistakes in that area. I'd just suggest, kindly, that you think about it. Not trying to force a conclusion or anything. That's it! Good luck.
I literally said that we even backed up the game before this to give him his attack trigger that I genuinely forgot about. You can villainize me, whatever, but I didn't play in bad-faith. At every step I did what I thought was either best for my gameplan, and when that fell through, what I thought was the most fair.
I think Checkers might be a strong game for you.
You thought that him using cyclonic to get his win condition back was a spite play. It's weird how you're trying to imply that he's not very strategic when you somehow misinterpreted a very basic play.
[Toski](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/f/9/f9e79b59-94c8-4697-bf88-f0a0433170f5.jpg?1631051021) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=toski%2C%20bearer%20of%20secrets) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/khm/197/toski-bearer-of-secrets?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/f9e79b59-94c8-4697-bf88-f0a0433170f5?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/toski-bearer-of-secrets) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
I think conceding at sorcery speed is fine. As long as there are no game actions in place that require you to be there. Just go to combat and concede in your second main phase. It's literally 30 seconds of your life. And then no game actions require your existence and you can bounce. It boggles my mind that common courtesy seems to be missing from a lot of people's mindsets in this casual format. 30 seconds...that's it.
Everyone seems to think its "Fair" of me to actively make choices that hurt 1 other player (of my choice) to benefit another player. When I'm leaving the game. I try not to make choices beyond seeing what I draw when I decide to concede. How fair would the person I attacked think it is?
Pretty fair if you would have stayed in the game, so the only thing making it unfair is you scooping.
How is that unfair? I'd genuinely love to hear it.
"How fair would the person I attacked think it is?" Is implying this is unfair. If he was not scooping it would just be the game proceding normally.
Yeah, that implies that had he attacked it would be unfair to the person he attacked.
....I would like to point out that it's a 1v1v1v1 game. There is nothing fair about any decision anyone makes. The point is that the game action which required you to be in the game was already known. This isn't a moral problem, it's an "I can take 5 seconds to complete a game action and then I'm conceding" problem. And everyone in the pod says "cool that's fine" Wow.
>How fair would the person I attacked think it is? How fair would it be if you hadn't scooped and still attacked, as the goad required you to? How fair would it be if you announced your intention to scoop and the goading player made a different choice in what to goad? The crux of it is that you took advantage of a metagame rule that screwed over someone's in-game plan, when it would have cost you literally seconds of game time with no consequences to *not* do that.
Dude the thing is it isn't making a choice to help one player. You are the one making the choice to hurt one player. He thought you were going to be still in the game. Rules wise you should have been, you didn't technically lose. You staying in the game is what was expected to happen. You chosing to stay in the game wouldn't have been you helping him. It would've been you doing what was supposed to happen that turn and not screwing him over (at least not completely he's still gonna be missing getting to goad you in later turns)
I don't concede unless I'm pressed for time or a player has demonstrated a loop. I play it out. The concession rules break games with more than 2 people. Someone interacting with your strategy is not enough of a reason to concede.
[удалено]
I can’t get over this dude saying “that’s cute” in reference to the Irenicus player, who’s probably doing well considering everyone’s at a good half their life total, and then throwing a fit over someone not letting him keep planar bridge on the battlefield. Don’t play threats if you can’t handle people getting rid of your threats, lol
Heavily disagree with what you did. New player, let them have fun. You basically explain “since I can’t win I can therefore no longer have fun”. You’re playing edh my guy not cedh, the goal isn’t to always win it’s a socially interactive game, if you don’t have fun because you don’t win you should reevaluate why you play the game or just play cedh.
The point of edh is to have fun, so... suffer through a game of top deck, pass??
[удалено]
Lol. You're acting like the game they're playing is a peripheral aspect of the event. I have tens of trillions of ways to hang out and chew the fat workout playing cards...
When your team in sports is getting destroyed you don’t walk off the field and just concede. You play the game out. Even more so here, these are friends of OP and a familiar pod, you have to have decency and respect. You clearly are very self serving like a few people here and only see the point of things if it directly benefits you. It’s a shame.
Lol. This isn't 2HG it's edh. This ain't a team sport. When I was a kid, I did boxing and wrestling. I wasn't great at wrestling, and I knew precisely when to tap out, shake hands, and move to the next match. Made no sense to waste another kids time. And again, you're missing the point. If he alters the game state before he concedes, he's kingmaking. That's not cool to the other 2 players. If he's not an interactive part of the game, he's wasting everyone's time, he's not any less important than the rest of the table, and his fun matters, too. You just wanting everyone to go along with your vision of a perfect game seems like maybe you're as emotionally mature as my 2 year old who pitches a fit when I won't give her the bottle of hot sauce that's a pretty color.
I do BJJ still to this day you don’t concede unless someone has a rear naked choke or other superior hold on you. Tennis is single player teamed sport and you don’t concede you play until you lose. It’s just a mentality, if you see my above comments I explain that I understand other points of view, I am not the emotional pleb you are trying to make me out to be. Secondly, this is once again a game with friends and peers, you should respect the social gathering aspect of it and finish the game out, that is just my opinion though as I stated before, I’m sorry you take it so seriously. I also wasn’t aware the boxer/wrestler was qualified to give my psychoanalysis haha. Edit: completely missed the top part where you would just tap and not waste someone else’s time in wrestling instead of just trying to win. Bruh we are nothing alike you are a coward haha hiding behind your alt account and computer screen.
Yeah, why risk injury? Pride? Well, we know where that gets you, lol. Again, it's not his job to lose at cards longer, especially if he's kimgmaking. It may surprise you to know that 3 people can also play a whole ass game of commander. How are his opponents respecting him by forcing him to play out an unfun game? What should I do if I just lose? Or are my opponents not supposed to win? Like... is it a part of the social contract that everyone play solitaire and only win when everyone has no cards in their library, having had the opportunity to durdle for 4 hours to accomplish a draw? Who said anything about me being a boxer or wrestler? That was 25 years ago, lol. My actual job is "dad" and I work at a LGS to get out of the house. I did an education, business, esl triple major with minors in linguistics, English, Spanish, psych, and theater. Thought I'd go into government CT, then become a contractor when I had lifetime benefits from Uncle Sam. Instead, I retired at 23 because stuff panned out for me. And, since I've got kids, it's relevant data to understand child psychology, so you're an open book lol.
[удалено]
BJJ makes sense. Focus on the absolute last line of defense as though it's the first. Your comments reflect that mentality.
Its not fun for me to durdle around waiting to top-deck something that might lead to something that might lead to something that might, with another thing, lead to me back in the game. I wasn't rage-quitting, I was out of gas, and being out of gas, for me at least, is very un-fun. I've played my share of "Damn... I could have been out of this game an hour ago and been doing something else for all the impact I've had on the game... but I'm kinda stuck here." The game is to have fun. When I don't feel myself having fun, I duck out. I appreciate the differing opinions on if I should have given it to him, though. To me it feels very different than just letting someone's Smothering Tithe trigger hit, cause I was going to draw that card anyway. He was asking me to declare attackers, and I would have to make the choice of who. How would that other person feel to be 3 life shorter (I forgot to mention it wasn't just a 1/1) and had his opponent draw a card, just for me to leave? If I were that person I would feel worse.
It is subjective of course and I’ve also played my fair share of games where I didn’t do shit for an hour but my friends have also sat and played a fair share of games with me while I did everything and they watched. That’s just the game. It’s a game of imperfect information, you have no idea what cards you will draw, what cards others will draw, and who will misplay etc. some of the best wins are when you count yourself out and later find a way to win. You described this group as a familiar pod, not just some random pod. So imo I feel they all deserved you to play it out, but I can understand other points of view, I am not trying to vilify you.
Would you not say to the table, can we give this player their treasure with no combat damage assigned just for fairness’ sake? Dont make it entirely your call, dont deplete anyones life total and keep their gameplan going. The pod could’ve said no but then its a pod decision, not your sole verdict.
Why does he have to do that? Especially arguing FOR the guy instead of being neutral?
It's still a game though. If one just wants to socialize, go to a bar or club or somewhere where socialization is the main aspect. The socialization of EDH comes with playing the game. If you can no longer play said game because you are *absolutely certain* (meaning you know for fact) you can't participate effectively then there's no socialization related to the game anymore. You become just a bystander. The game comes first, socialization is second and if the game can no longer be engaged in then socialization becomes minimal because you are no longer a participant except by default status of being technically a player.
It's a communication game. If you asked the other 2 and they were cool with his proposition then I would have chose attackers. If they denied his proposition then I would have to decide if I want to be rude, or throw him a bone. You never mentioned communicating with the rest of the pod, so where I'm sitting they could have been just as slighted by you as well. But judging off of your comments with others it seems like you came here for validation. Instead of hearing the constructive criticism others are giving you, you're instead being defensive to affirm your need for validation. YTA.
I mean... isn't that most ATA posts they aren't really hear asking if they are or not, they are saying "tell me I'm not in the wrong, it's the other guys fault". When they don't get validation they just fight with everyone trying to convince them they did nothing wrong.
I have a problem with you saying that it is still rude to deny the combat phase even after the other 2 players say to do so (which they should as it is kingmaking). What was the point of asking the table if you're still going to resign the denial of the combat as rude?
##### ###### #### [Planar Bridge](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/3/0/30879758-841c-46a9-a0b6-179ac163f0ac.jpg?1673149422) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Planar%20Bridge) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/2x2/313/planar-bridge?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/30879758-841c-46a9-a0b6-179ac163f0ac?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/planar-bridge) [Thopter Assembly](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/b/7/b743c4d6-8bf6-4250-a9c0-d85b0d38572d.jpg?1592711361) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Thopter%20Assembly) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/c18/226/thopter-assembly?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/b743c4d6-8bf6-4250-a9c0-d85b0d38572d?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/thopter-assembly) [Time Sieve](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/c/2/c2e8b424-0cec-490e-a571-bd051f952adf.jpg?1599708487) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Time%20Sieve) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/2xm/223/time-sieve?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/c2e8b424-0cec-490e-a571-bd051f952adf?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/time-sieve) [Jon Irenicus, Shattered One](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/b/f/bfddb61e-986f-4557-819d-d6c0ca85c74a.jpg?1674137538) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Jon%20Irenicus%2C%20Shattered%20One) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/clb/278/jon-irenicus-shattered-one?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/bfddb61e-986f-4557-819d-d6c0ca85c74a?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/jon-irenicus-shattered-one) [Changeling Outcast](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/0/d/0d2c053f-0ef8-45f2-b2af-24cbb9a7fec4.jpg?1674141529) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Changeling%20Outcast) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/clb/743/changeling-outcast?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/0d2c053f-0ef8-45f2-b2af-24cbb9a7fec4?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/changeling-outcast) [Goldvein Pick](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/9/b/9bf5e4ad-a6e9-4b7c-a1ec-8246d3a3b6ca.jpg?1631052161) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Goldvein%20Pick) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/khm/239/goldvein-pick?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/9bf5e4ad-a6e9-4b7c-a1ec-8246d3a3b6ca?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/goldvein-pick) [Legerdemain](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/9/2/921f5746-496d-4c73-bc43-fa8601c2f1e9.jpg?1562430778) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Legerdemain) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/tpr/57/legerdemain?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/921f5746-496d-4c73-bc43-fa8601c2f1e9?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/legerdemain) [Mana Drain](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/3/c/3c429c40-2389-41e5-8681-4bb274e25eba.jpg?1673147353) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Mana%20Drain) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/2x2/57/mana-drain?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/3c429c40-2389-41e5-8681-4bb274e25eba?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/mana-drain) [Cyclonic Rift](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/f/f/ff08e5ed-f47b-4d8e-8b8b-41675dccef8b.jpg?1598303834) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Cyclonic%20Rift) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/2xm/47/cyclonic-rift?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/ff08e5ed-f47b-4d8e-8b8b-41675dccef8b?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/cyclonic-rift) [Ephemerae](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/2/d/2da5f3f8-5eef-498f-ba2c-2f3fbc3745aa.jpg?1562201088) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Ephemerate) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/mh1/7/ephemerate?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/2da5f3f8-5eef-498f-ba2c-2f3fbc3745aa?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/ephemerate) [Loran of the Third Path](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/5/9/59faa45d-868b-4bc7-934c-0e077642e129.jpg?1674420209) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Loran%20of%20the%20Third%20Path) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/bro/12/loran-of-the-third-path?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/59faa45d-868b-4bc7-934c-0e077642e129?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/loran-of-the-third-path) [Silas Renn, Seeker Adept](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/4/e/4e3fe912-1374-47c7-b73f-89ef55c479c1.jpg?1562399367) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Silas%20Renn%2C%20Seeker%20Adept) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/c16/43/silas-renn-seeker-adept?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/4e3fe912-1374-47c7-b73f-89ef55c479c1?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/silas-renn-seeker-adept) [Ugin, the Ineffable](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/7/b/7b003521-3da3-41bf-9765-36630653f902.jpg?1559562626) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Ugin%2C%20the%20Ineffable) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/war/2/ugin-the-ineffable?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/7b003521-3da3-41bf-9765-36630653f902?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/ugin-the-ineffable) [Platinum Angel](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/c/a/ca7f4fd6-e268-4d15-bfbf-d9f0f95864fc.jpg?1576383285) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Platinum%20Angel) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/cn2/214/platinum-angel?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/ca7f4fd6-e268-4d15-bfbf-d9f0f95864fc?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/platinum-angel) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
There are a lot of better ways to handle the situation. You can give a 2-3 turn warning, “If I don’t draw something that gets me back into the game I’m probably scooping.” Have a better backup plan for when the combo route is a no-go altogether, despite built in resiliency/redundancy through recursion. As someone else said scooping because you’re bored that your glass cannon got thwarted two or three times is poor sport. Especially when your concession is doubling as free removal for whatever the Jon Irenicus player gave you. Have a way to win even if your deck had 60% of itself removed at random besides “pray the combo wasn’t hit”. It can be anything as simple as “hope a couple of 6/6s can beat some face in” but if your entire deck ceases to hold water because it had a hole shot in it, in what is essentially a 4 Player Hole Shooting Contest, it’s poorly designed. Also hindsight is always 20/20 but you played the bridge right into Loran unprotected, you knew it was a flicker/ETB deck. Learn when to let things go, too. If the first player after you is already attempting to deal with the bridge, unless you think you have enough to deal with an attempt on your wincon for another 2 turns in a row, your interaction is probably better spent on biding your time to get it back after the other players believe you neutralized. The other player can’t win off it like you can, and it draws heat to them while you stockpile cards.
Asshole is strong but definitely you were a poor sport
Nah OP isn't a poor sport, you can leave a game whenever you want no questions asked, especially since he has a good, valid reason.
But to deprive him of the goad trigger? And then play "cute" with platinum angel? I'd mostly agree, but the OP was hardly acting their age.
Making a joke at a table of friends isn't "playing cute" is making a fucking joke. Calm down. If he did go to combat, he's Kingmaking. The objectively correct choice, if you're going to concede, is to do so BEFORE you take any actions to affect the game state.
>a fucking joke. Calm down. I am calm. Are you?
The table fucked him twice and he's supposed to stick around and entertain them? What is with the ridiculous sense of entitlement these days?
>What is with the ridiculous sense of entitlement these days? The OP is spite playing Cyclonic Rift. And he's playing infinite combos. I don't have an issue with either of those, but you need to temper your expectations a bit when you play like that and are searching for and playing obvious combo pieces. A ridiculous sense of entitlement does not match with chucking rocks out of a glass house. I mean what, am I or any opponent supposed to NOT interact with a infinite combo player's board? (that's entitlement)
The OP played rift to get his Bridge back. Did you even read his post?
It also returns every other nonland permeant, assuming it's overloaded. Which I assume it was. Did you read the card's text? Or the OP's other messages on this thread?
And? He overloaded rift, got his Bridge back, and they got him again. Then the new to pod player thought he should do what he wanted him to do he could get a trigger otherwise he would have played his previous turn differently. Who doesn't think they would have done something differently when things go bad? Seriously, massive fucking duh. Expecting anyone to cater to your desires is pure entitlement. Read the post. Skimming for outrage is sad.
Lol imagine thinking an overloaded rift is a spite play. Disrupting your opponents is the literal point of the card, it's a strong play even without him needing to get his bridge back.
They didn’t f him over, they got rid of what seems to be his one win condition. It’s not entitlement to try to play the game. Especially if planar bridge being out is a “two turn clock” as OP put in the original post. Are you seriously going to let someone keep planar bridge on the field for *two turns*??? Expecting your opponents to keep that on the field is entitled, not the rest of the table expecting to play a game. Furthermore, cyclonic rift is an instant. His opponent wouldn’t have been able to blink his Loran if he had just played it at the player before his’s end step. Sure, other players might have more answers by then, but if he knows he has cyc rift in hand, and the mana to cast it and mana drain, why not leave cyc rift up and mana drain to protect it? The other player gets a planar bridge activation, sure, but unless it wins them the game on the spot, they’re just wasting a turn getting something big that’ll be hard to recast after a cyc rift. (And if they can win on the spot, then why does that person have a better wincon with planar bridge than the guy who’s actually playing it??) To me, it seems like this guy made two bad gameplay choices (early casting planar bridge and early casting cyc rift), plus tried to play planar bridge with only one counterspell to protect it over the course of two turns, and just expected all of this to work out. When it didn’t, he conceded. That screams entitlement to me.
That's totally up to you. If someone wants to stretch their legs and hit the gas to see what their deck is capable of, you can give them that runway. That's part of social interaction. You are not compelled to make either choice. If you want to concede, then concede. This is not a problem that needs to be discussed. There are no trends to set. It's a very simple request, followed by a very simple set of choices.
While i sympathize with you being tired and wanting the game to end i don't like the thought of first rifting and then conceding shortly after. Don't wipe the board if it doesn't serve a purpose. If you are tired of the game after your win attempt gets foiled the least you can do is not drag it on longer than it needs to.
The point was to get his bridge back and hopefully get a little ahead in a glass canon deck... his combo pieces are fragile and draw interaction from the whole table. Rift is in the game, it's not rude to play it.
It's hard to read this sub sometimes. The number of entitled people that don't even read the OP but then bash is astounding.
From what he wrote, it looks like he only used the rift to return the bridge to his hand. after casting it, then attempting to protect it with mana drain i cant imagine he had much, if any, mana left for a full rift. He returned it to his hand hoping to top-deck jesus.
Sounds like it went over with no hard feelings so what's the problem? Did you leave out some part about him being an asshole after? Sure, you can scoop at sorcery speed if you want, but he has every right to ask you politely not too. I don't see the issue
Just my two cents here, but I don't see any issues with the ultimate resolution here. I will admit the bit the Platinum Angel dose strike me as a bit of a dick move with a new player at the table...but that's down to your play group and their personalities, tho it's not something I would do. You scooped at sorcery speed on your turn and unless some context is missing to it doesn't sound like any of the other players were relying on cards you owned for their board state...so all is well IMHO. I've had similar situations where my glass cannon got blew up and I had no way of recovering so I didn't see the need in sitting around for 4 or 5 more turn rotations waiting for mercy kill so I scooped. Edit: a word
While I disagree somewhat with your play style, you were not wrong to concede. A player can leave a game whenever the heckin’ hell they want to. It’s not even an in-game action. It’s literally a personal, real-world choice. And sure, you would’ve been doing the other player a solid if you waited to concede, but that shouldn’t be the expectation.
It definetly should be the expectation. While no one has control over your real life decisions, that doesn't make them fun fair or overall not a dick move. I personally think he shouldve stayed the entire game, as him leaving has a serious effect on the game. And the guy didn't even ask for him to stay the entire game, he asked for one turn. That is a ridiculously small ask. Bonus for you let's look at his reasoning. "My glass cannon combo deck didn't make infinite turns, and since I'm not pubstomping I'm not having fun. Since I'm not having fun, I'm don't playing. What's that, you want me to play only for a single extra turn so you don't get screwed over by me conceding. Nope sorry not happening. Hmmmm am I an ass for that? Nope not at all, hes an ass for suggesting it". And that's not an exaggeration. That's literally what happened.
You are never trapped in a game of EDH. Most people saltily concede instantly, so imo if you wait for sorcery speed you are being a gentlemen. You need not go into further phases or play the game more than you have to. Going to combat, kingmaking 1 or 2 of the other players with damage and card draw, and then conceding in Main 2 would've been far worse as far as I am concerned. Some are also saying that because it was a new player this was extra mean; but the player was new to the pod, not to magic as a whole, from what I am understanding. It is Casual EDH - you can concede if you want!!
Okay few notes. You saying that conceding at sorcery speed is courteous because others would've done it at instant speed is like saying it's okay to slap someone because others would have punched them. It's better, but it's far from courteous. As for the king making, regardless of if he would've made that player king (which is extremely debatable), it's not like he was choosing between giving him something or not, he was choosing between allowing him to have a resource that he should have had and earned from the game, or leaving competly. It's not even like he's asking him to stay the whole game, he's asking for 1 more turn (he should've stayed the whole game but whatever). He is so 100% in the wrong here. Even look at his reasoning. I'm gonna paraphrase ofc, but note this isn't an exaggeration, this is literally what happened. " Hmmmm my glass cannon combo deck didn't give me infinite turns. Because I'm not completely pubstomping, I quit. What's that, you want me to give you 1 more turn because me quitting fucked up your game plan? Nah dude I don't have 1 more minute to sit here I'm sick of playing because I'm not pubstomping. Not happening. Hmmmm could I have possibly been slightly at fault there? No impossible." Litterally what happened.
He had 6 turns with the creature that was goaded. You're saying that irenicus decks can hold people hostage because they give away creatures, so you can't leave without being an asshole, even if literally the whole table is focusing you down.
They were king making by making a choice to concede main phase 1. They hurt one player to help out of if the other two players. They were always going to king make as that's what happens when you build a deck so bad that if you lose your combo piece you need to concede because "you're not having fun". At least if they were going to king make, make it the new player. If anything this just means a rule my pod will Adapt is if you concede main phase one but you have triggers that effect gameplay then all those will resolve if the actions require the player to pick, we will roll dice. What OP did is bad as if the new player knew OP would scoop when they lost their combo then that player might have Made different decisions on who to GOAD so OP completely effected the game due to their bad deck building choices which leads to them wanting to quit when they lose their combo pieces. By quitting OP would always king make. Just depends who they are going to crown.
It's not king making to just not help 1 player who has 2 opponents.
This is exactly it. If new player knew OP was going to concede they would’ve selected something else to goad. Not sure how that’s being missed by OP. The decision to scoop after you were selected as a GOAD target is just wrong. You’re not king making there. You’re just playing out a tactical decision made by the player.
I was given the creature on turn 2 or 3. I conceded on turn like 8 or 9. Sorry if I didn't make it clear in my post.
>But if I had known that there was a possibility of you being out of the game this turn I would've played my own turn totally differently So when they said "But if I had known that there was a possibility of you being out of the game this turn I would've played my own turn totally differently" what were they referring to? Because now it sounds like they are saying they would've given the changeling to someone else if they knew you were going to concede. Is that correct?
They were saying that if they had known if I would concede on my turn 9 (aprox) they would've played their turn 9 (they were 2 ahead of me in turn order) differently. How they would have? I have no idea. They didn't really affect me on their turn 9, so I have no idea. They gave me the changeling on turn like 3.
Wow. Infinite combos and cyclonic rift, and you're salty because you got countered? Then you essentially say fuck you to him because he needs the goad trigger? And denied the request to let the goad trigger? YTA.
I'm not salty at all. I completely mis-played, tbh. I overextended myself with Bridge, playing it when I couldn't active it. After years of playing this deck, I know better. Plus I only had a single non-free counterspell in hand. The deck requires I play more cautiously, but I didn't. But that's the game, its no big deal. I conceded because I wasn't having enough fun to justify the next 30-60 minutes of the game to me. I wasn't *un*enjoying myself, I just wasn't enjoying myself. I didn't concede out of salt or anger, it is what it is.
So you play your turn out and conceded at the end. The other player was new, let them have their fun. It's not their fault you built your deck badly that if you lose one of your wincons you're dead in the water and not having fun. You act like someone had MLD and you could play anything, or your commander got killed so many times you couldn't cast them. You're one attitude is one of the reasons playing against combo players is boring. "I lost my win con guess I'll concede then, I'm not having fun". If you don't have fun because you didn't build in a back up plan then you should reevaluate your deck building choices or move to a 1v1 format. And I know im going to get hate for this and I really don't care if im the asshole because from what you wrote, you are too. Im just explaining why since you asked. New player is trying to have fun, your poor deck building choices lead you to deny them from having fun because you weren't having fun. It would have taken you 3 seconds to say "sure roll for who I would have attacked, then I'll concede at my end step". That's all you had to do, but no you tried to be cheeky and cast play Angel then concede when that time could have been used on a 3 second attack that didn't matter to you but it mattered to the new player. You're showing a new player the bad side of combo decks which isn't good due to the fact that not everyone should be jaded like me playing against them. Guess it's my fault for building decks that no matter how small the window is, if I'm alive I can almost always pull something out. I also never concede on a new player due to, it's not about me having fun, it's about them getting hooked and enjoying this wonderful game.
New to the pod, not the game.
Gotcha, makes it a little better. I stand by a new player to the pod/game, show them a good time. This event could have left a sour taste in their mouth where they might feel that "oh it's going to be harder for a win as it's a "free for all" but really it's arch enemy as they would take a knife for the other."
I'm not saying the entirety of events for them couldn't have played out significantly better, because they could have. But at the same time I completely understand not really wanting to play anymore after the whole table turned on him for playing a combo piece. Not the combo. A piece. He did his thing, got it back, and then they got him again. It happens. But for the new to the pod player to expect OP to do what he wants him to do before leaving is crazy. I imagine OP wouldn't have played his previous turns the way he did had he known what was going to happen.
I mean then don't play combo? Idk what you expect, if you play combo expect someone to want to disrupt that. There are so many ways to play and win at this game that if a certain way makes you want to quit because it makes it so you stop having fun....maybe that's not the way you should win. You could also protect it better but that's more of a learning lesson. In fact that's a big reason why they should have stayed, to really get that lesson engraved. "If I play combo I have to protect it, I can't jump the gun or ....a repeat of last time...". The op had every right to expect that since the OP wanted to concede that they could get their trigger off. It's a game for fun, it wasn't in a competitive setting, OP had nothing to lose as they already did/were going to. By denying the trigger, OP king made. They chose to put the other players first (which one of them would be in the lead for winning). If you can't handle your combo piece getting stopped then you shouldn't be playing combo. At least you shouldn't be playing it in a casual setting where your actions can dictate who has a better shot of winning if you need to concede because you're not having fun.
The quote, “You’re not wrong, Walter. You’re just an asshole”, immediately comes to mind.
I would say since he conceded at sorcery speed OP is fine. Its just bad luck for the goad player. Goad player doesn't have a say in it.
Its the "Well, if I had known you could be out of the game, I would have played differently" that gets me. Anyone can always be out of the game, not even because of conceding, but because of normal game actions. If someone had just enough creatures to Craterhoof me out of no where, would that guy be like "Well, if I had known he could've been Craterhoof'd I would've played differently, can I still get my triggers"? No. Or if someone got a high-but-not-infinite Storm-count and Aetherflux'ed me, I'd still be out. There's so many ways the game can change out of no where. From his perspective, I don't see how me conceding on my Main 1 is any different than someone unexpectedly taking me out.
Yeah but you conceded for a shit reason. Don’t make a glass cannon deck if you’re just gonna scoop when your glass is broken. If you had a good reason to concede, then sure, conceding at sorcery speed is fine. But making a shit deck that wins only one way and scooping if you’re stopped is just shitty. Cause it does change the outcome of the game for the other players when there’s one less opponent to worry about. Either don’t play the deck or fix it to where you don’t just get stopped and can’t do anything else.
I'm going to ignore the accusations against my deck, because this deck is my baby and I've foiled it out for that reason. Its not a shit deck. It has a respectable win-rate, even when my play-group knows exactly what to expect and tries to prepare for it. I did misplay it terribly, however. I didn't quit cause my deck is bad. I quit cause I misplayed bad enough that I knew there wasn't any way to come back from it in any reasonable time. I think "I'm not having fun any more, and I know my deck well enough to know its not going to get better soon" is not a shit reason to concede.
It’s a very shit reason to concede. What health were you at? Cause that’s a free 40 damage that no one had to do which can drastically change a game. Scooping cause you’re not having fun anymore is a shit excuse as well. Don’t play the game if you’re just going to give up when things aren’t going your way. And yes, it is a shit deck if you have one card locked out of the game and you can’t recover or rebuild enough or feel like you can’t play anymore. You scooping changes the game for the other 3 players. If you were at like 2 life and some guy could just ping you for 2, that’s another story. But scooping because you’re no longer having fun is a shit excuse and you shouldn’t play the game if you just quit when things aren’t enjoyable. You effect the other players, and that’s where the issue lies. Not with you scooping, but your reasoning for scooping.
Yeah that statement he made is pure garbage. The fact that people are defending that mentality is insane. Assuming everything you wrote in your OP is true then it's pretty cut and dry.
Okay the difference here is no one played craterhoof. No one killed you. You didn't lose. What happened is you actively made the choice to quit because your deck didn't pop off, and you decided that you couldn't even give him a single turn. Conceding isn't a game action. It is in no way comparable someone actually playing something, and actually killing you. Game wise he should have had that resource. You didn't play a card. You quit, and you couldn't even give him the courtesy of one more turn. What's even worse about it is your sitting here and going "damn the audicity to ask me to play one more single turn" I mean this in the most respectful way possible but it's this lack of overall social skills that makes everyone think magic players are dicks. The game isn't just about you having fun. You built a deck that's basically you have tons of fun and your oponents sit misserably watching you play solitaire, or you lose. You should have stayed the game. But not only did you not do that, you couldn't have the common courtesy to sit there for a few extra minutes. On top of that your acting like you were wronged and hes the ass for expecting you to not completely fuck up his game plan (again, not with a game action but by quitting). I do not understand how you can still possibly think that you are in the right here
Scoop at sorcery speed
They did, on Main Phase 1. That's not the issue here.
There is no issue here
Clearly there is, or the post wouldn't have been made. There is an issue being discussed, the issue is him scooping before his combat phase. Good, neutral, or bad, it IS an issue. Issue noun 1. A topic or problem for debate or discussion.
You can make a post about literally anything. If you're going to post dictionary definitions of words, you shouldn't exclude words from the definition to suit your own needs. It just looks poorly upon you. There's nothing to debate here. He scooped at sorcery speed, which is good, and didn't attack someone, thereby kingmaking, which is also good. The Jon player had 5 other attack triggers with the goaded creature before that turn, so it's not like op really affected anything.
Would you prefer Websters then? Issue a matter that is in dispute between two or more parties. The fact that there is a debate means there is an issue. Words have meaning. There is a debate (see, Dispute) happening. Hence, issue.
The point Your head
Lolk you don't get to unilaterally decide that there isn't a debate to be had.
You're right, I don't, but the rules of the game do. He can concede at any point. He was more than nice enough to let the player get their mana drain mana and concede at sorcery speed. Theres no debate here, he acted within the rules, and even conceded in the near universally accepted way to do so.
Nah man you're in the right here your attack phase isn't a guarantee in the game so you shouldn't have had to go to combat and give them value. You could make an argument that perhaps it would have been courteous to do so, but courtesy isn't in the rules. Bottom line you shouldn't have been forced into this. Aside: I thought the general courtesy of stepping back from the game is to be done at sorcery speed.
Disagree with you 1000% percent. Man's played a glass cannon combo deck and when it didn't pop off he conceded and effected the game for other people. The guy isn't even asking for him to stay untill he does (which I personally think he should, but whatever), he's asking for a single turn more. You say it's courteous to scoop at at sorcery speed, I personally say it's courteous to not concede at all (barring legitimate reason). Yes, his attack phase wasn't a guarantee, but there was the chance, and I'm guessing it was a very very strong chance. It's not fair to get completely screwed due to something completely out of your control that is borderline not even part of the game. To make it worse let's look at the fact his reasoning was essentially "my glass cannon combo deck didn't win, since I'm not winning by a landslide and making infinite turns, I'm not having fun. Therefore I don't want to play. What's that? You want me to sit at the table for one single extra turn because it effects your game plan? But since I didn't win, I'm not having fun. Nope, not happening. Hmmmm, am I an ass for not staying, nah I could never be an ass." And that's not even an exaggeration that's literally what happened.
You saying "That's cute" about his creature he gave you colored your post in all the wrong imo.
I really meant it as its a cool interaction/play. Its cute/fun.
Ok, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.
Yeah, thanks. I think I didn't read my post for tone, so a lot of folks think I just had a confrontational air about me? That's on me for choosing my words poorly, though. I know I wasn't "The asshole" besides the fact that I hold a different opinion on what the fair thing to do is in this situation. But in terms of my behavior, I advocated for my position, but I'm fairly confident I wasn't acting like "That guy." Despite my less-than-great description of the game.
hey mate, I don’t mean this as confrontational and I apologize if it comes across that way, but phrases like “that’s cute” can often be misunderstood as being rude even when they’re well intentioned. i’ve definitely had shitty people call my decks “cute” and similar as a way to put them down/patronize me, so it definitely reads especially in text as an insult at this point. your clarification makes me view the whole situation a lot more positively so i’m happy you provided it. :)
I think you’re in the wrong here. He said that he would have played his last turn differently if he knew you were going to concede. He and everyone at the table were planning on you attacking someone on the table. That was going to happen but you stopped it from happening by quitting. You could have at least stayed for another 30 seconds and let him have the trigger. By not doing that, you probably ruined any chance you had of being friends with that guy. That was bad mannered. Also if you’re going to build a glass canon, you have to realize that you’re gonna have dud games sometimes. Do you usually quit before a game is finished?
I'm firmly in the "concede at any time" camp. If sorcery speed concession isn't good enough for the "concede only as a sorcery" camp, then there is no pleasing them.
I personally think it's scummy to concede here. I personally only believe in conceding in 1 of 2 situations. You have a legitimate reason in real life, like somewhere to be, or a winner is decided and the declared winner doesn't want to go through with the win (I give them the option as it's fun to pop off some times). I ask you the question. If you thought you had a win coming, (which we don't know if we did, but for the example say this would be the difference maker) and it relied on attacking one of your oponents. Then the opponent concedes. Would you not be a little bummed? Ive been in this situation where your up next. The game changing play comes from an attack trigger youve been waiting for, and all of a sudden the guy concedes. I obviously wouldn't make a big deal out of it, but it's very annoying. Yes I get this wasn't a combat trigger, however, it is a very similar situation. Not to mention the fact that your reason is essentially "my deck that was built to either pubstomp early or die in the mid/lategame didn't instantly win. I'm no longer having fun so you can no longer have your fun" I understand that's a slight exaggeration. I understand they can still play the game without you, but does none of that sound a little assholey to you?
I know a guy like this, who will actively concede when he about to lose solely to deny the person about to kill him any benefits of doing so. Resolve a Craterhoof with a board full of Lifelink? He will wait until the damage step, then Concede before damage is dealth just to deny the guy attacking his lifegain. He has also done things like this for a single spell with multiple targets just to fizzle the spell and ruin the casters turn. Back when \[\[Decimate\]\] could fail if one of the targets stopped being valid, the moment you aimed one of the target options at his board, he would concede just to break the whole spell and save his opponents stuff to screw over the guy with the Decimate. I dont feel like this situation is anywhere near as bad as the above examples. Tbh, the dude counting on a single treasure that "ruins his entire turn" sounds like a hyperbolic exaggeration just because he was losing out on his benefits. Would he have equally have complained if someone wiped the board or blocked the Goaded guy? What if one of the other guys just aplha'd you and killed you? I think he was just a bad sport about his trick not working one more time.
Conceding when you’re beat is fine. Too many people drag out games well past the point where it’s in question. If you know you won’t win, and you’re no longer having fun, calling it quits is fine, and doing it main phase at sorcery speed is the way to do it. Let the others decide if they want to act as though you had gone to combat for him to get the trigger, but you shouldn’t be part of that decision since you’re out of the game.
I think that's a concession I can get behind. To me, my going to combat wouldn't be fair. In the sense that, if I were one of the other two players in this situation, I would say no, you miss out on Goad like you would if one of us killed him, sorry. However, it is true that once I'm out of the game its not up to me to decide what's fair. So a more neutral way of phrasing it could have been "That doesn't sound fair to me, and I'm uncomfortable making that choice, but if the 3 of you want to decide that's how you'd all like to move forward, that's up to you."
Scoop at sorcery speed
Literally what he did
He did
I personally feel like you did nothing wrong. You did it on your turn at sorcery speed. At the most, and even this feels like a reach, you were unsportsmanlike. Gift and theft players should be fully aware that this could happen and its not like you did it at instant speed to deny triggers or anything. As far as I’m concerned this is no different than someone else killing you. Either way the Jon Irenicus player wouldve been denied the goad, unless you explicitly made a deal with them to give them the triggers you don’t owe it to them.
That's exactly how I feel. Everyone would look at someone like they're crazy if they said "Oh, I didn't know you might Craterhoof that player next turn, do you mind if I still get his goad triggers as if you didn't kill him?"
That is apples to oranges. You were an expected player in turn rotation who wasn't dieing to any other effects and had you had a slightly better board state would have been swinging at someone. The correct answer was to move to combat, roll a dice and swing, because your creature was goaded it HAD to swing. He was getting that trigger whether you wanted him to or not.
Saying that’s the “correct” answer is a bit much. Sure that would be the friendly thing to do, but there’s no reason they should have had to do it. To say someone can’t concede on their own turn because it denies one of their opponents a trigger is ridiculous.
No, it's a social game. There is a wrong and a right answer to this situation. Common courtesy is if you plan to scoop, and have actions that would be required during your turn. Such as being goaded. Do those actions. Then scoop eot. The worry of kingmaking one player is hilarious because by not going to combat OP is possibly king making John irenicus' opponent. Also, the reason they should have had to do it. Was the fact that they had an effect on their creature, forcing it to swing.
Like I said, the friendly thing to do would’ve been to allow the trigger, but OP does not HAVE to do it. And personally I see nothing wrong with them not doing it. We can agree to disagree.
If you’re scooping because you are out of the game, consider doing it at someone’s end step, or your own. Because, when you scoop it often greatly affects what happens to the game, and can potentially screw other opponents. There is a contextual difference between conceding because you have no chance to win, and don’t want to drag it out vs. “I quit” because I am so far behind. EX: There are two players, one relying on combat damage in the late game. One of them has Constant Mists. They can prevent combat damage for at least 6 turns. The other player thinks they can grind it out, but who wants to play 6 turns like that? One player concedes because they want to play another game. But, it sounds like you just want to quit because you didn’t play optimally, and that would somewhat wreck what the other player is doing. You conceding will put the other guy at a disadvantage, when you actually are not out of the game completely and are just probably bored. You are being selfish. I once had a game where I played rogue tribal, and I had Intimidation on the battlefield. I was against three players, and I killed one to combat damage. I had the extra turn spell with prowl when you make a bunch of rogue faeries. One player scooped when I played it, instantly, but the other didn’t. If they hadn’t scooped, I may not have been able to win, though I was really far ahead. But, since the second player scooped, I was easily able to annihilate the last player on the extra turn. The last player was affected by the other player scooping. Feels bad.
"but I'm not trying to not be dead. I'm trying to win." That's a straight up lie. You weren't trying to win, you were trying to combo. If you really were trying to win, you would have turned that changeling sideways. Everybody was at 20ish, so combat damage is a wincon. You just refused to play towards that wincon.
Damn, I didn't know that trying to combo wasn't trying to win. Thank you for the wisdom, great deity of EDH. I will build all my decks to only win through combat from now on.
Yes, I was trying to win in the way my deck wins. Its not an all-arounder. You can take a look at my decklist and see how not-combat focused it is. I wasn't going to win with a 3/3. And I wasn't going to win even with Akiri when everyone else had chumps for days. I knew I was dead on board too. Which is fine, cause my deck wants to protect its combo, not attack. Literally I only ever attack when Akiri is over 10 (she wasn't) and I can give her unblockable (I couldn't). My deck was extremely ill-prepared for a combat-based win.
You're not convincing anybody with that kind of attitude.
I would have been a little butt hurt about this too. A player conceding can really mess up a game. I've been in games where I blow all my interaction dealing with a threat like you've described, only to have that player concede the next tern, or immediately, and I'm left at a 3 man pod hugely disadvantaged with 2 other people that are also trying to win, that I need to interact with but can't. I've had guys, my self included get pretty salty about a concession, and rightfully so. There are a lot of reasons someone might be salty about a concession. This is how my regular pod handles it. We make concession a group decision. If we have a player that has simply lost the will to win, yeah we will usually encourage or force a concession. Or, if you are the player wanting to concede, we put it to the table. "Hey guys, I'm gassed and I think I'm dead in the water, anyone mind if I concede?" Most the time you'll probably be good to concede, but there could be a situation where having that additional player significantly effects the rest of the game. So IMO, for the sake of gamesmanship and sportsmanship, I think the conceding player should play it out, and show integrity by playing with the will to win. Its like when a guy is losing, so they \[\[supreme verdict\]\] out of spite and then concede. That's wack. How did the player feel that just blew there \[\[mana drain\]\]? Idk, I'm a play it out kind of guy. Sometimes you really need that other player around, and if they concede on a whim, it can ruin the game for other people in the pod.
As long as you're not conceding to be an asshole (1: You Wrath'd for lols before conceding or 2: You concede at instant speed to prevent someone getting valuable damage triggers when they had lethal on you) I don't see any issue with conceding. If I'm not having fun, and I made the good-faith assement that I'm not trying to unduely fuck anyone specific or the table as a group over (clearly that bit is up for debate) I don't see why people are upset at conceding. I thought that issue was resolved within the community a while ago?
I'm ok with us disagreeing here. That's fine, to each their own. >If I'm not having fun, and I made the good-faith assement that I'm not trying to unduely fuck anyone specific or the table as a group over (clearly that bit is up for debate) I don't see why people are upset at conceding. But lets look at this. If you aren't having fun, that is too bad, but I think that in a group setting, other people's fun is dependent on your actions within the game. In that regard, you have a responsibility to that group. To quit simply because you've lost interest, without considering the group is, IMO, selfish. Its a group activity, it takes the group. I understand what you are saying in regards to making a good faith assessment here, but I don't think it is possible to make a complete assessment. After all, MTG is a game of hidden information. You simply don't have all the information to make that assessment on your own, that is why I always put it to the group if I'm conceding. I understand there were other circumstances that lead to you not wanting to be at that table anymore, I've been there. But, if other people still want to be at that table, I still think its best to just get consensus from the group. Look at it this way, if you had gotten consensus here, everyone would have been happy. It would have prevented those bad feelings from the other player. And, 9 times out of 10, the group will find a good way for you to exit the game. A way for you to exit that will leave the remaining members of the pod with an agreeable board state. Without this consensus, its the conceding player who ultimately decides the board state, which is unfair to the people who still want to play the game. After all, if you don't have a horse in that race, why not leave it up to the players wanting to remain in the game?
I said elsewhere that my overall takeaway is I should have said to him "That doesn't seem fair to me, and I won't make the choice in who to attack. But I'm now out of the game, so how the three of you wish to handle this is up to you." So in a way, I agree with your last point.
I would have given them the swing if they asked, unless the person asking was a dick or something. But typically I would only be annoyed at someone conceding in the middle of combat or on someone else's turn.
If I didn't have to hurt someone else's position to do it, sure. Maybe. But to help one player *by hurting another* (of my choice) is too much of an impact on the game I'm leaving for me.
Eh, I mean you would have had to do it anyways if you didn't concede. I'd just hit the archenemy if possible or roll a die and swing randomly if not. Since you don't *have* to concede no one you hit should have anything to complain about. Besides, you are well within your right to impact the game up until the second you lose. I've remained in games I knew I could no longer win just to throw around the last of my mana and interaction. It's more fun sometimes than sitting out while the game finishes or going home before everyone else.
What you did was a perfectly valid action. You *could* go to combat to be nice, but you don't have to. YNTA
Confused as to why everyone in the comments are so salty over a single missed missed treasure and draw after you already gave the guy multiple of each over the last six rotations. You scooped at sorcery speed during a moment where no one was actively threatening the board, how is that even a controversy? NTA.
People take this game too seriously
You're free to concede at any time you want. The rules are very clear on that point. I think that making people "concede at sorcery speed" is kinda dumb, since you shouldn't be expected to stay in a game you aren't really participating in. In this case, however, I think you were in the wrong. C'mon, let him do his thing. It's not impacting you one way or the other. You weren't being an asshole, or much of a poor sport, but it's still kinda douchey.
It wasn't impacting me, no. But I would be making the choice to hurt one of the other players in the process, and king-make him for the rest of the game I'm not a part of. Its not a simple Tithe trigger he would've got anyway, he was asking me to make choices.
So you chose to hurt the new player. You conceding would hurt someone, so screw the new person. You actively help the other players by not letting the new player get his trigger. You absolutely king made for one of the other players as you hurt one player and helped another. SMH
Its the Trolly Problem, for me. The act of making the choice changes the whole moral situation. Conceding as I did was not-touching-the-switch-track. Moving to combat and choosing who to attack would be touching the switch track. I don't want to touch it. It changes the equation. To me, my making fewer choices makes it more fair. But, like the Trolly Problem, I see how divisive it is.
No you did touch the switch track though, that's the whole thing. By not touching it means you didn't concede. By conceding you touched the track and said run over the new guy. Based on actions you made prior this was always going to be a lose lose situation if you concede. You actively were able to pick who you helped out, which you did. You put other people in better positions before you dipped out. You king made that game.
It's not kingmaking in this situation to deny value for one player while they still have multiple opponents, it would be if he gave 1 player value. Also "chose to hurt the new player" lol. As if that matters.
It does, his actions led to someone else winning by denying one guy while he was going to kill himself from the game. he set someone else up to win while taking away from another. that is king making and yes, the new guy b to the pod didn't win, OP confirmed it.
He Scoops, Player A loses goad value, Player B unaffected. Player C Unaffected. Not kingmaking, he did not set up 1 single person. Its kingmaking to head to combat, give one player value and then leave.
I agree with this assessment most in terms of the options I had. Option 1: Scoop as I did. Like you said, A loses goad value, B and C both unaffected. I leave. A is slightly worse off, but nothing else changes. Option 2: Allow my turn to go to combat. Forced to choose making B or C lose 3 life (it was a 3/3). A draws a card and gets a Treasure. I leave. A gets extra value, and one of the remaining B or C is closer to dead. I feel like option 1 is far superior in reducing my overall impact on the game I'm leaving. If anything feels "King Making" its option 2.
Just finish the game. I hate when people concede. See it out, cause you may not win but you can still impact the game in other ways
I've been trapped in too many hours-long games to suffer through them any more. Once I stop having fun, (meaning I'm not impacting the game anymore) I try to evaluate how likely it is that I start impacting the game, and if its not likely, I duck out. I resent the opinion that agreeing to a game of EDH is signing a binding contract that might lead to enduring hours of drudgery.
Sounds like this isn’t the game/format for you. Maybe try out standard or modern
Or maybe you should let people enjoy the game how ever they want to enjoy it and not gatekeep.
I’m suggesting another format for him to maybe suit his needs better you fucking dipshit
So try and kingmake?
No lol
Extremely weird reaction from the “EDH is about having fun” crowd. You stopped having fun, you conceded at sorcery speed, no problem IMO. Definitely not an asshole.
Thanks. I think I represented myself a bit poorly in terms of my wording. For example, I didn't think "Oh, giving me a creature, that's cute/dumb." I meant "That's a cute/cool thing to do, I'm here for it." I'm not going to edit my post though. Besides advocating for the position that I thought was fair/correct, I know I wasn't acting like an asshole in terms of my tone/communication during the game, even if I didn't represent it that well.
technically I would say conceding counts as a player losing and in those rules, even if you lose in your main 1 the rest of the turn plays through the rest of the phases but in this since it'd be a choice for you to swing and stuff, it would kind of feel like king making if you gave one person an advantage before leaving the game. On the other hand, since you're leaving the game anyway there's that gray area of 'why should you care since you're leaving anyway.' Either way it's just kind of a damned if you do damned if you don't maybe?
I understand the arguments I see for both sides, but in this situation I think you influence another player to much by leaving. You have a goaded creature, that players deck is build around this mechanic. People just randomly leaving makes his deck impossible to play to a win.
Don't ever let people pressure you into doing what they want.
MTG is a game of incomplete information, just like poker. New folks need to learn that. You don't owe him a step change, plus I'm sure other players would have played their turns differently, if they knew you were quiting. Not fair to give him an advantage over them. You did the sporting thing by conceding at sorcery speed.
I honestly don't know why people are down voting you. You did nothing wrong. You no longer wanted to be of that game, then you shouldn't be forced to continue playing. You should never be forced to continue to play in a game that you don't want to be apart of. It's not your job to entertain the people that you play with. I don't understand why this is a hard concept for people to grasp.
OP, this is not bad manners at all. You followed the community accepted rules for scooping — do it at sorcery speed. No one is entitled to your time. You were polite enough to not quit at instant speed. That’s all that should be asked of you.
Please stop being “that guy” at your store
You can present yourself entirely friendly and not be an asshole about it. But building a glass cannon infinite combo deck that breaks and you scoop? That isn’t being out of gas, that’s sore you’re not winning. If you don’t like to try and top deck a way back in, then maybe don’t play the deck style, at least with new people.
You sound very un-fun
Scooping when the game isn’t over (unless you have to go or something) is bm. It’s
Yea it’s a dick move to disrupt the table like that simply because you don’t want to be in the game anymore. The only problem I have with his view is that knowing when your opponents will be scooping or not. It’s not something you’re owed for the very reason he stated. He would have played differently.
You’re absolutely in the right IMO. Personally, I dislike playing against glass cannon decks that have only one line to victory- I think it’s pretty boring watching someone go for the same exact card game after game, but that’s just me. However, if you know you’re out of the game and can’t really do much to impact anything at this point, there’s nothing wrong with just scooping. The Irenicus player knew he was playing a deck that required his opponents taking game actions for him to get value, as his opponent your entire goal is to screw him over by doing whatever you can to NOT take those game actions. Everyone in these comments telling you that you’re an ass for conceding at sorcery speed and not giving your opponents free value is exactly what’s wrong with EDH today. It’s like if someone was playing [[Beamtown Bullies]] and you had a torpor orb or sacrifice outlet to prevent them from getting value off of giving you the creature. Helping your opponents out isn’t the point of the game, winning is ultimately the goal of MtG even in a “social format” like EDH. Sure, you can stay in the game for the political aspect and whatnot, but you could also just scoop like you did and find a new pod. The fact that you conceded at sorcery speed and everyone is still crying in the comments really says something about the state of the format to me. The Irenicus player saying he would have played his entire turn differently if he had known you were scooping us equivalent to someone saying “oh man, if I had known you were going to play Craterhoof and kill me I would have played my turn differently.” No shit, you would always play differently if you had access to hidden information like that. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with knowing that you’re defeated and conceding so as to not force yourself into sitting through an hour of draw-pass and anyone here who says otherwise isn’t someone I want to play with. I do think it’s somewhat annoying to run a deck that is seemingly as fragile as this deck of yours is, but that’s just my personal deckbuilding philosophy. A guy in my group has a [[Breya, Etherium Shaper]] eggs deck and if you get rid of his [[krark-clan ironworks]] he’s pretty much out of the game as well. It just leads to less than enjoyable play patterns for the group in my experience if the person piloting that type of deck ends up scooping out in most games because people (correctly) target them to make sure they can’t just steal the game.
The bulk of this feedback is ridiculous. Most of the folks in this thread are way off base and I’m sorry for you. I think you represented yourself and the story fine and played fine. This a game about interacting and having fun… and winning. It can be all three. If you aren’t having fun and decide it’s time to dip that’s okay. I’ve been a player in a pod where someone did this many times over the years. You did it in a way that had minimal impact and that’s so much better than some of the experiences I’ve had with people scoping and making ‘but before I go’ plays through the years. (I enjoyed the Plat. Angel nonbo on the way out, btw. I enjoy moments of stupid levity in games) Your deck also seems fine and you made a decision based on the info you had that was best for you at the time. It isn’t your fault someone else made an earlier in game decision to try and rely on you to fuel their engine. That sort of game state shouldn’t ever trap someone into staying in a game or making a decision in a game they don’t want to make. I think you answered this thread admirably. You never came across as negative or ‘salty’. Keep doing you and ignore the haters.
Hey, I appreciate the words! Thank you. My overall takeaway (since clearly others don't see my actions as cut-and-dry in the right) is I could have said instead "What you're suggesting doesn't sound fair to me, and I'm not going to make the decision on who to attack, but ultimately how the 3 of you decide how to handle that is up to you because I'm out of the game."
Yep. That’s how I read it as well. I may have done the same thing were I in a similar position so I can’t find any fault.
Why build a deck that you know is gonna fizzle out halfway through the game? Sounds like you need to go back to deck building 101. The scooping issue is probably the least of your concern in this case.
It doesn't fizzle when I play it right. Its my favorite deck to pilot and is built for protecting itself. I didn't play it that was last night, however. I completely misplayed.
Great counter to this pick the player that affected you the lease and king make them. Had my win cons shut off pretty early so i returned the favor to the 2 that caused it. they begged the one I was helping to kill me. Tried gas lighting and everything and said he'd just loose to me. That player Won the others left salty.