*casts Counter Spell* Good hygiene trumps even basic decorum IMHO. Seriously, folks, wash that booty, brush them teeth, and wear deodorant if you're going to the LGS. 🙏🏼
Fr, wouldn't invite most in this comment section to any of my games. How can you be such a bad sport just and then run it of "this is legal". Like they did not play any game in childhood with any houserules. Wtf
@ Litterally yes, i love playing commander, but i usually just enjoying playing with my close group of friend, outside i feel that many players are often, extremely too shy, complaining about a counterspell, with bad manners, not accepting or embracing the political aspect (dont like to make ANY deal or help to beat the archenemy, being really againist talking during the game) and usually i feel a very unpleasant enviroment. The social Aspect of the game can be quite the bad part of playing commander, my girlfriend and some girl friend i have stated that they felt uncomfortable playing commander with random people during small torneum cause people were “unable to talk to them or communicate with them” treating like they were “new to the game” even if that wasnt true, Same for me, i got a guy talking about my commander (a alela, a woman) as “ a whore,bitch and a hoe” repeatedly during the game, even after i was clear i would like him to stop, lol
I was playing in a pod this past Saturday. One player was taking 5 turns in a row. I asked him if had game, and he said he was looking for it. 2 turns later how found card and started looping. And I scooped during his turn. The 3rd player in my pod got upset and started yelling that I can't do that and. I just looked at him and started packing up. I'm sorry but if I know my opponent has game or I'm just not able to play, then I'm scooping. No sense in wasting both of our time.
Build a deck that loops infinite turns, but do nothing with the turn other than loop said extra turn spell/time sieve or whatever. Get into a pod with that player and then keep them hostage, and if they try to leave/scoop complain to them that they can't scoop at instant speed, citing the time they claimed the same thing in an oddly similar situation.
I agree with your sentiment, I just don't think your post has anything to do with what's being discussed here: You're not weaponizing conceding at instant speed in this case you're kinda doing the opposite. Yes this is a good example of a reverse scenario when keeping the game casual should mean concede at instant speed but the video is also about keeping the game casual by *NOT* conceding at instant speed.
@@dimitriid it's about quitting at "instant speed". If an opponent is taking all the turns do I really need to wait for them to naturally draw out their deck to thorical before I can quit the game? More so, why can't they just demonstrate their loop and jump to their wincon like every other combo player does in competitive formats?
In my group people ask to concede. "my deck isnt doing that great and I know you can kill me anytime" or "hey, this guy is probably going to win the game so you all want to scoop so we can start up and finish another game before the store closes?"
@MaskedZoo Yeah when I'm at an LGS I don't want to win as much as I want to play as much games as possible. But when people bring cEDH decks to casual I'll just be like.. "Show me the LED." Or "Show me the Thassa so we can move on to game 2"
@@kakuofwei This was my entire experience with MTG. It was normal for people to bring competitive legacy and competitive vintage decks to new player casual night so they could spend 20 minutes taking their first turn and winning T1 every game. The first few months of me playing 'casual' magic was me drawing 7 cards, waiting 10 to 20 minutes, shuffling the deck, and doing it again for 3 rounds. If I conceded when they did their Rakdos scam combo or whatever, I'd be denied my guaranteed pack for signing up to the event because I "didn't play the game". (That is, it appeared like I was scooping every match because the game would be over too quickly) In 'casual' commander, every other game was someone getting T1 Ad Nauseum or Thassa combo. The one time I used a Pact of Negation to stop them, they complained that I was a spoilsport, countered it with a Force of Will, and won anyway. And then the table went on a tirade to me about how I shouldn't even be playing the game if I'm going to throw like that.
In casual commander, if someone concedes to deny lifelink or whatever the other players should and usually do just pretend they conceded after damage and it's fine. I think 'concede only at sorcery speed' (aka only on your turn) is silly because turn cycles can take _forever_ in Commander; but 'concede only when _a_ player could cast a sorcery' (so, during a main phase on _any_ turn while the stack is empty) is not unreasonable as an LGS rule or in a cEDH setting. Literally earlier today though I chose not to concede a game because two of the other players were playing decks that used opponents graveyards as a resource and I didn't want to deny them mine, so I can understand feeling pressured into not conceding. That's probably an issue in cEDH tournaments, especially if two players know each other or something. In casual… eh just use reasonable judgement and don't be a prick, even if it screws you over, chances are you'll be on the other side in the future anyway. It's the same with takesies-backsies.
If you completely destroy someones chances to win in game don't be suprised when they do anything within the rules to screw you. I alongside most people will react pretty strongly to their deck being hosed or being targeted all game by someone.
I disagree in the strongest possible terms In a casual setting, using game mechanics to counter antisocial behavior, is completely within your right. It's not different from playing removal on a card you personally don't like when objectively there's probably a better target for it. In more competitive circles there's nothing wrong with engaging in either intragame politics or as MAD to discourage one play or another. That's a reasonable part of the game to leverage, and is a genuine drawback to cards like commandeer or steal enchantment or the like.
There is a difference between scooping to expedite the game and scooping for spite or to hurt another players strategy, especially combat steps. You can mitigate both by having a 'ghost clause'. Let anyone quit at any time, but a 'ghost' of that player persists until their next turn. That way people don't scoop to spite a Sword of Feast and Famine trigger and lifeline still works, etc.
I think a good potential rule change for multiplayer formats that would make everyone happy is something like "Players can concede at any time. If a player concedes at any time other than a main phase when the stack is empty, they will lose the game instantly the next time this is true." If you wanna pick up your cards and leave the table that's cool, the rest of the table can just treat the board state like your cards are still there until the next time the stack is empty on a main phase
That's sorcery speed scooping, not instant, and is against 800.4e When someone quits, the stack fizzles and you move through phases immediately to end step. If you don't like that as a response to your targeting of them over and over? Don't play the game with them or at all... We are all entitled to play as we wish within the ruleset... We aren't entitled to controlling the actions of others...
@@c0wb0y.crypt0only stuff that that player controlled or that was targeting them won't resolve. The rest of the stack will be just fine. You also play out the rest of their turn as normal, just with no active player. 800.4j: If a player leaves the game during their turn, that turn continues to its completion without an active player. If the active player would receive priority, instead the next player in turn order receives priority, or the top object on the stack resolves, or the phase or step ends, whichever is appropriate.
@@c0wb0y.crypt0 There's nothing in the comprehensive rules text about slow play or pubstomping either, but nevertheless they are causing a lot of discord in the community, and thus are strongly discouraged. Sadly, slow play and pubstomping are hard issues to address with rules due to them being so socially complex, but the concede issue isn't. Spite conceding is used maliciously, and thus is undesirable and should be addressed. It can be resolved with a hard-and-fast rules amendment, unique to the commander format: They could just amend the rule to "In commander, if a player conceded, they would still be considered present at the table, but passing all priority, until the end of the current phase, or until they would die from in-game means before the end of the current phase." It's a rule with 0 downsides. Most people manage to handle this amicably and with a reasonable degree of empathy without a written rule about it, but we can't assume that all players are like this, and clearly they're not based on this comment section, so addressing it is highly justified.
My LGS has a few rules. • If a player concedes while other players controlled permanents (or cards in exile) owned by that player, those players get token copies phased in replacing said permanents. • A player conceding while spells or abilities on the stack are targeting said player, while spells or abilities they control are on the stack, or is being attacked will cause a ghost player to replace said player for the duration with the same life total and with any relevant copies of permanents or spells the conceding player controls in play. • A ghost player losing the game before all conditions for it existing expire will cause all phased in tokens from the first rule to phase out.
I like these house rules because it doesn't remove agency from the person who was losing the game. they have the power to pick up their cards and leave. as should always be the right of any player at any table. it's a nice houserule that makes it soo the losing player can move on, and the surviving players continue the game they're in.
Nope. I'm not taking damage from 1000 elves,watch 7 turns and 12 draws while I have 5 life. Hitting me for 1000 when I have 5 life, you're being a prick. You can do that alone
My house rule of instant-speed surrenders is, even in cases where I will instant-surrender, is resolve things as if they players just passed priority at every point given. Yea, you swing out at me, I won't block anything, all triggers resolve. I can see I'm dead, so Imma just scoop it up and let you get your value.
@@shonmatthewblocking does nothing for Lifelink, and if you're going to scoop like that I guess you can't do much to avoid combat damage triggers anyway
@@berserkerciaran it's less lifelink that I'm refering to here as the dying player, but blocking to trade off some creatures so the other two might have a better chance, seems reasonable? Having a cost to killing a player like losing attacking creatures seems pretty normal right? But if you just say oh I'm dead, im not blocking, it seems odd not on denying any triggers, lifelink, whatever but that you're making it cost less to kill you? Unless we mean scooping for some emergency, then yeah, I think it makes sense to just pack up stuff and say have fun do what need to do what ever I gotta go.
Part of my problem with the EDH subreddit is that people dog pile on one unpopular opinion without looking at nuance. I brought up how spite scooping can be seen an unsport/unsportsmanlike conduct by a judge (and said it probably wouldn’t be ruled that way unless a judge was making an example) and got downvoted to hell “cause it’s in the rules” even though part of the point of it is to protect competitive integrity and the environment. People won’t want to play decks that rely on triggers that need an opponent, if play at all, at an LGS where scooping to screw over an opponent is allowed and/or encouraged. Nuance is important, and communication is important - if you had something come up, say it so you don’t look like a spiteful prick when you scoop. Just because you can doesn’t mean you should. The rules start to get wonky in a multiplayer game, and the competitive integrity and environment start to get damaged as people use the rules to hurt others instead of gaining an advantage.
You play to win, not play to eliminate your opponents. If I need to leave or there are other external circumstances, I’ll concede if necessary, but generally if a game action (including conceding) isn’t moving me towards a win, I’m not taking the action. Legal game actions are legal game actions, but I might not wanna play with you again if you play that way.
I remember a game where I received an emergency call from my family mid-game. Instant scooping is important. But EDH is a casual format. How the other players deal with this situation is entirely up to them. You could have an informal house rule to resolve any upcoming triggers regarding the leaving player.
My first deck was Kardur Doomscourge about 2 years ago, and once I started upgrading it my friends who I'd play with at home would concede just so they wouldn't have to attack each other, then the person with 90 power on board just smashes me. It'd make me angry so whenever I had the chance to severely screw them over by conceding, I did so. They stopped shortly after.
Its also a diffrent mindset for irl than online aswell, you can play the most toxic combo contol decks online all day non stop, you take that to a store no one is going to play you.
I literally exclusively play a stasis/orbs and have had only 2-3% of people react negatively, I honestly think it's more of a player/social awareness issue that gets amplified when a player plays cards that forcibly disrupts others and makes them acknowledge them.
If someone concedes at instant speed in order to try and spite the player who is about to kill them, I just treat it as if it didn’t happen. Be a baby, I’ll treat you like a baby. What will you do about it ? You are no longer in the game 🤷♀️.
If you try to scoop to deny someone say lifelink damage or combat damage triggers dont be that guy. And if someone does do that, just give the triggers to the player.
It's extremely rare to see someone concede at instant speed. At least in face to face paper games. I dont know what online environment is like. In situations like this were the player needed that life gain. Me as another player at the table would of told them to gain that life even though the other player scooped before they hit them.
I’ve multiple times had someone scoop before damage so I didn’t get my combat damage abilities. It’s very frustrating because he does it for the other person at the table to “have a chance” even if I think I don’t have a chance without it. He also hasn’t been seen in some time, so I don’t know what happened to the guy
@exiledhero3791 in my experience with in person games at shops or cons most other players at the table will just play it out like that person is still there even though they scooped. Because of how bs and petty it is to do it. In my area players like that who do it more then one time either get banned from the shop on the extreme end or not allowed to come to commander events at the very least.
Happened to me and a friend with two randoms. My friend attack with the big dino who can bring dinos into play when he is doing combat dmg to a player and the opp conceded after the attack was declared on purpose to cancel the trigger.
@@qriist no you are the problem player actually 🥲 I think you misunderstood what we meant. We all know what the rules say. But as a group we choose to let the game progress without having pure spite plays affect it. We know it's not how the game is supposed to be played but we have fun this way. And if you concede to prevent triggers well I think most people won't play with you next game...
@@martinheraud1744 any interaction option can be considered morally wrong if you explicitly frame it as only to be spiteful and don't acknowledge it's uses, conceding is no exception to that, genuinely think about it because it has very interesting uses as a tool to win games.
Yes, a player can conceded at any time. However due to the multiplayer nature of EDH, you are affecting multiple other people if you do that like in this case. In constructed its irrelevant since its 1v1 if you concede the other player automatically wins. In EDH there might still be three others playing and now the outcome is likely affected.
It has been this way literally forever though. It wouldn't take much to change this, but it isn't broken or anything. Just the way it works. And yeah the outcome is affected, but that is how the game works. It is literally in the rules. Before you ever built an EDH deck (and likely before you ever looked at your first card) the rules worked like this. So it would be foolish to build a deck that eliminates one player at a time AND needs to benefit from that. You know what many 1 toughness creatures were unplayable in legacy since june of 2023? Dies to bowmaster. Do you know why creatures with toughness 3 or less were considered unplayable in legacy and modern for like a decade or more? Dies to bolt. If EDH players actually understood that they were playing in a format that is as powerful as any other eternal format they'd shut up about this. Why don't you play your lifegain deck anymore? It dies to concede.
aye I conceded at instant speed to heroically help the two players who weren't in as good a spot as the 1 who was attacking people out of the game. for 0 political advantage mind you because I still lost. I have positively affected half the table with my noble decision. which they agreed was nice because they proceeded to turn around a bad situation thanks to my losing.
My group has a rule of "no scooping out of spite." We can scoop at instant speed if it doesn't affect the outcome of other players, but even if it's sorcery speed we don't scoop if it's specifically to kingmake in some way. A perfect example of that is one of us plays Rendmaw, Creaking Nest. There are loops that give everyone an arbitrarily large number of tapped goaded bird tokens. If no one can concede, the other players take each other out and then Rendmaw finishes off the last one, but someone could kingmake by taking out one player and conceding after combat, allowing the last remaining player to take out the Rendmaw player since there's no other players to attack. Even with conceding at sorcery speed, it's a dick move there because it's specifically to screw over the player that would normally win.
My personal feeling is that concession should resolve at end step. Concede at sorcery speed is fine until someone goes infinite and holds the game hostage. With concession resolving at end step, you can still get up and leave whenever, but the game state will treat it as though you are still present until the turn ends. When you concede, from that point you automatically pass priority and are not obligated to be present. If someone controls cards you own, they can use token stand ins until end of turn. This way no one is screwed by a concession, and no one is obligated to stick around.
@@Stonehorn I agree with you, but 2 points I'd like to raise. 1. Some people are just "that guy". They will purposefully prolong the game to play solitaire with themselves. Could they have won 15 minutes ago? Absolutely, but they didn't. 2. Sometimes someone just fails to get there. It is rare, but I don't always want to stick around for 20 minutes to see if they do. Hence my suggestion above.
Salty scoop is annoying. I only scoop when I know I can't do anything that game. Like I draw something that doesn't help why continues. But I rarely Salty scoop.
This is my single biggest MTG pet peeve. I have no problem with conceding a game you have no capacity to "come back" in. I even encourage it so we can finish up a game faster, and shuffle up, letting us ALL get into more games. But do it with tact and respect. If a player is declaring actions on you to get some triggers, or performing / performed actions based on the understanding that you were still in the game, and THEN you choose to concede specifically to spite that player and deny them their triggers... that's not kosher bro. Sadly that seems to be a minority opinion.
My play group can usually see or notice when someone is clearly about to win and can all mutually agree to scoop (winner also agrees), congratulate homie on his win and shuffle up for the next game. It's a game. Not a big deal.
Tho what is someone has a way out if they are forgotten, like they have a bounce all attacking creatures in hand. You kinda force them to reveal they have something, where that might change the plays of the active player what makes them win for sure. The info of knowing them having something is information you more or less give away, information that they shouldnt have.
Noteworthy: while I'm in agreement and usually am in favor of resolving the situation as if the concession doesn't take place, there is one exception. If you can cause yourself to lose with game actions, it "is* fair to stifle another player's advantage. So, pay all your life out and die mid-attack using in game effects, no sword of feast and famine trigger, etc.
During a casual game I had to leave because my ride was there. He asked for just another minute. I asked her if it was okay. She said it was fine. He spent several turns counter spelling everything I played and expected me to stay there while he eventually grabs a combo which he didnt have in hand. Players should be able to just concede.
I dabble in cedh with friends and we have a running joke whenever gitrog or magda go off thats like: "Oh you concede? In response dredge a land, discard land, dredge, etc" conceding is instant speed after all! That said whenever a game gets to that point the entire table is well into gg go next territory including the one going off (Gitrog comboes are PAINFUL)
I was playing a janky Pamrikon fling deck. When someone suddenly conceded, I lost the next turn. It sucked. He then complained, in another game, when I threatened to do the same about quitting over life link the whole pod was furious. I made the point, it was the same lack of sportsmanship issues. They ignored it, so I left the pod.
Fun fact a lot of people miss is that if a player concedes (on their turn) their turn finishes/phases as normal so you still get all your different effects if anything happens during that turn/end of turn.
I would allow the stack to resolve and that would be the last time I personally play with that individual. Actions have consequences, he/she chose to impact the game outcome by leaving in a malicious way, so I choose to avoid that happening again 😊 Do I feel bad not offering a second chance? Not really, my free time is precious. That said everyone I play commander with at the moment are amazing fun loving people and this just wouldn't happen and I love that about them
At a store you are there to play a GAME not play with FRIENDS. If someone ruins the game, they are a bad person to play games with and you dont play with them. Simple as. The only value you have to each other is in the game. I used to play boardgame nights at an LGS every week. This was very very easy for people to solve. We had a good crew. Dont know why mtg commander freaks are such trouble. If you can play 4-6 player boardgames with strangers all night one would think a game of EDH would be braindead simple.
Spite scooping and kingmaking out of spite are both bad, whether the environment is toxic or the player. Being chill and making sure everyone at the table is given a good chance to have fun (including yourself) is the best solution
Articulate why turnabout isn't Fairplay and why leaving a game when you are not longer in a position to win or have fun, is Toxic or Bad... Go ahead... I will wait for your narcissistic response of "What about my game!?"
@@c0wb0y.crypt0 I think that's not the point he made. You're right, if you feel like you don't enjoy the game for any reason, you can leave without causing any trouble. The only thing is that if you do it mid combat, it is a bit rude, because conceding in response to an attack is not something we are prepared for. In the specific case of the video I would maybe let the attacking player get the lifegain for instance.
Personally I am sick of thassas oracle. We have a commander fnm with 12-16 players in pods of 4, and I'll ask if they have thassas oracle in deck. If yes, I concede and walk away.
Yeah, I think this is just the same usual bad communication and whingeing we always get from EDH. I let people quick playing at any point. If someone is always doing it at wildly inappropriate moments like mid-stack resolution, I'll talk to them. If someone is a jerk and always abusing the charity of the group we 86 them. The old "Hey man, you suck, bye-bye!". As far as someone needing a toilet or something: Let then go. Take a little break. Idk. People take this stuff too seriously.
In a game with Ramses Assassin Lord, considering conceding at instant speed just makes him entirely useless, we should probably acknowledge the game was never designed for it.
@@lloydnoid6506 Essentially yeah, although less that it wasn't designed for it (it works fine in 1v1) and more that it's SUPPOSED to be a quality of life feature to either speed up a foregone conclusion or because obviously sometimes real life intervenes (plus it stops the classic "I have lethal but lemme spend 30 minutes trying to set up this conbo" situations). The problem is that certain... socially stunted individuals think they're tactical geniuses for realizing they can effectively cheat by abusing said QOL feature. Like if they remade Mario Party with a save state feature, they'd be the ones save stating before each minigame and resetting until they win because "The game lets me do it, so it's a valid strategy."
There's no official rules for commander, wasn't even a WotC run format until *VERY* recently and they still haven't done a single ruling about commander yet so yeah, you go have fun at official formats where you could get away with that statement without being seeing as the a**hole by basically everybody.
Na I'ma scoop so you lose on purpose. Not my fault you bullied my life to gain some life. Now you lose like me. Edit: unless I'm the actual table threat, I'll take the loss and let you get your life with a smile.
We (our LGS) frown upon conceding "at instant speed" and view that in tournaments as spite play and punishable. Kinda hardcore but the alternative is pretty much worse imo. Edit: In general our LGS is really cool and friendly, most players that play there are happy when someone pops off and is taking the win, so I guess it's all about having a decent community 😅
The major problem is that the scooping player did so to intentionally cause OP to lose. I had that happen to be once. My life total was low and I had a few creatures with lifelink. I attacked a player with no blockers, and he immediately scooped once my attackers were declared. I didn't gain any life and I had fewer blockers, so the next player was able to take me out on his turn. This seems to be the main way something like this happens, a player attacks because they can gain some benefit by doing damage, and the player they're attacking scoops to prevent that. If nothing else, when that happens, the attacking players should get to go back to before the declare attackers step. I doubt the intention of scooping at instant speed was for players to be able to do something like this.
"My opponent can prevent me from gaining an advantage as their last game action." should be part of your risk assessment. Misplays like that will often be okayed to roll back at the tables I've been at, however. Just don't let yourself think that it wasn't a misplay.
@@GolfJuliettWhiskey You make a fair point, as conceding at instant speed is the official rule. I suppose I should clarify that I think that rule needs adjusted to account for this kind of situation. I know you could just rule-zero it, but if you're in a situation like the OP in the video and playing with randoms at an LGS, having to rule-zero something every single time, particularly on a rule that feels so unintuitive, feels like it calls for just a slight rules adjustment. If nothing else, if you lock in your declared attackers, and one of the players you're attacking scoops, you should be able to reassign those attackers if there is an eligible target. I doubt such a rule would be implemented, as it would be a bit too convoluted to not be on a case-by-case basis, but still, I feel that scooping to spite another player's actions should be discouraged.
@@lordroyalnightmare The things is be conscious to avoid is creating scenarios in which the player that currently has the option to strategically concede becomes a consequence-free "lifelink and ophidian Pinata" that is forced by the rules to take the beating. It's a rule that as it currently exists puts agency into the hands of the at time of interaction most disadvantaged player. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect players that are in a position to win the game to act with this risk in mind and strategize accordingly. But I am weary that rules changes that disadvantage and remove agency from players already on the verge of losing, to improve the quality of life of players that are winning, could essentially create a "sanctioned bullying" pattern.
@@GolfJuliettWhiskey Fair enough, giving a losing player some options to impact the game makes sense. I just think there should be a reasonable limit. If a losing player can scoop to prevent another player from attacking them for lifelink and damage triggers, I think it's reasonable enough that they could just scoop before combat and take the option away, rather than scoop after their attackers are locked in and preventing the benefits
When I first bought my K'rrik that deck had this demon theme + the thing that trade life with your opponents. The gameplan was go as low as possible, then use one of the life trade spells or creatures as a 'Gotcha!'. One day one of those guys that I play with just said 'In response, I'm conceding'. The spell whiffed and there was I with 2 life points and nothing more. This sort of thing started to become the main counter to my deck so rebuilt it from scratch and it in the most competitive shit a person can imagine. Right now it is my only deck that has a turn 1 win condition - there's quite the warped pleasure in looking at the eyes of the players when you cast a enormous Torment of Hailfire early as turn two and you see those fuckers looking around trying to see if they have a response... ...And you tell "Why don't you fucking concede?"
"Cool. so player 4 is gone. can i get my effect players 2 and 3?" it takes the players still in the game to deny you the effect. not the guy who conceded. thats one of the benefits of a casual format.
@@caiubibarros6969 Yeah, it seems totally believable that you bounced from playing a $45 precon into a turn 2 winning powerhouse because some rando beat you once.
@@BatCaveOzHe did say that a guy did it once and people started to use the same method to beat his deck. It's quite easy to make krrik go very fast and that's what it's known for at higher power tables.
If you are making the game unfun for someone, i dont see why they cant just concede. The goal is to beat the others at the table and concession is a step in that direction.
The idea of prompting concession as win strategy seems like a bad time. Either it works and you’re the only one having fun, or everyone targets you once they figure out your deck.
@@AgentMurphy286 i mean like both parties have alotted time for the hobby and want their skills respected but for some a concession rings hollow victory.
Conceding to force someone's stuff to fizzle is just insanely salty and cowardly imo. You just wasted this person time for no reason other than "I lose so we lose."
A out that beginning section: Yes. Blue prevents you from playing the game. Green also smacks you for 20dmg with several battle related keywords at a time. Both are pretty bullshit, but its what they do lol. One of those things where you can't do too much about it otherwise you kinda screw with the flavor the playerbase as a whole holds in high regard. Which also makes it too easy to not do ebough when addressing it and leads to an excuse on the dev's part. EDIT: To the main point: it should justnbe treated as everything going through. Personally as someone who basicallybonly plays 1v1 formats I dont particularly think someone missing triggers that would be beneficial should be considered as unsportsmanlike, but its not something I'm too invested in to care about. Treating it like everything just goes through would still cause a couple issues in some fri ge cases, but its the most reasonable interpretation of a concession imho
Literally just tell them no. I gain my lifelink and draw my cards, or redirect my attacks, one of the two. If the other players don't want to play like normal people just dont play with them anymore. If you quit the game and still try to have some say is absolutely crazy and is not happening to me
I don't really understand this take, everyone has a different understanding and definition of casual, and some players know more about the games than others. Imo it's perfectly fine to be new and want to learn more. Ignorance isn't a sin and neither is wanting to learn.
It wouldn’t be, you can just say your passing priority on everything your opponent does, declaring no blockers, and go on about your night. Then the game goes as it would have. Scooping at instant speed to try and make someone else loses just shows you’re terrible at commander.
one easy way to make the rule work in casual is to make it based on time. If you are going to die this turn and in an acceptable amount of time and game actions, just sit there and take the damage like an adult
Common concede hater L, if you put someone in a position where they should threaten to take you down with them then you fumbled and crashing out by playing Cedh decks against them is just going to cement you as not valuing other players as anything but a means to self appeasement.
The way I see it, it comes under "fair play". Leaving before triggers to ruin someone's game is unsportsmanlike. In our table, no one actually "give up", individually, there is only a collective "we concede, scoop and another round?". If I want to give up, but someone at the table believes he can keep up, I keep playing until the game actually finishes, one way or another. Sometimes it is boring to play a match that is already over, a newbie just can't see it yet, but it's part of the game, of teaching game awareness and helping others improve, so my table gets better. That said, I play with the same group of people, since there isn't a lgs where I live.
One time with one of my Doctor Who decks (Was either a modified paradox powers list or modified Timey-wimey deck, forgot which) I managed to cast Inevitable Betrayal with my chosen target being the dinosaur player (Because I figured they had the best targets as dinosaurs are famously large and beefy) and the dinosaur player assuming what creature I was gonna get, just scooped. Thus because my target left the game, I got nothing out of the card. That felt awful.
It’s ok to scoop at instant speed if one of your opponents has and presents a win, and nobody has interaction. Then it’s a “you got us, well played, ggs” and not a “YoU cAn’T dO tHaT!” Tho I will often ask that players demonstrate a combo or loop if I’m not familiar with them or their game (and I present my own loop/win, such as Edward Kenway infinite turns)
@@jordo2604 no it's called deterrence and I play around the same thing just fine despite relying on combat triggers for the majority of my turn so skill issue.
Wouldnt the best solution to be changing the rule to be "any player may concede during any non-combat phase while the stack is empty" or something like that. Either way, salt scooping is yet another reason to avoid EDH imo.
Wait... not playing is considered unfun? I as a yugioh player did not notice xD (The joke is, current dominant yugioh strategy is to speedrun preventing your opponent from doing anything for the rest of the game)
I have rarely conceded at instant speed, and only once to screw someone over. However that person was my brother, and we were playing with one of our close friends, so it was pretty lighthearted.
In my group, you're allowed to concede at any point, but let the abilities resolve. So for instance, that lifelink player will gain life from the attacked player who left. That player just won't exist in the game any longer. I pilot Davros, Dalek Creator. If someone concedes after I pelt them with an instance of 3 damage, I still get to make a Dalek and still get the villainous choice. In regards to the villainous choice and that player isn't there in person, either the other players vote for what I get or we flip a coin/roll a die.
After gegtting ganged up by 3 players I did it to deny life link when I had no way of doing anything. And I enforced that the "he would have gotten"-BS didn't go through. Sorry not sorry.
My groups rule for consession. Is if you say well you got me. Im gona. Scoop up. But do your attacks like im still here.. wouldnt he fair to take away their thought out decision to mean nothing. No rug pulls allowed
I’ve recently gotten back into Mtg, and while I basically have to read any card that isn’t at minimum 8 years old twice over to understand the new whatever and whatnot’s. I remember enough from the days of EDH and CEDH being the decision of what deck someone played at the table to know when a games over about 1-2 turns ahead of schedule give or take another players percent chance of drawing or having an answer in proportion to their deck building habits. My solution to this is to “faux-scoop”. I audibly will usually explain how the game is over assuming any competence in my opponent, and go on to prepare for my next game if I’m using a different deck or go peep singles unless I need to return to do the motions like a judge would CEDH. In this way, the person going off gets to go off, I’m not sitting somewhere bored out of my mind for another 15 minutes. And if by some miracle the game state resets (which definitely happens, rare but it does) you can basically walk of shame your way back into it without looking like too much of a cry baby. I definitely wouldn’t have comtinued the example game past them trying to argue the triggers not going off irregardless of the other dude picking his cards up. Never worth continuing to interact with those kind.
My group just has a rule we all agree to. If, for some reason, a player has to leave in a situation like that, we just reset to the last endstep/upkeep. Otherwise, we wait til after the next turn. The game is already competitive enough without people being jerks.
This once happened to me in a game after declaring an attack with my Wurmcoil Engine, it obviously pissed me off. I still won the game but no having those 6 aditional lives left me on quite a tight spot. Like 2 months later, i played with basically the same people and the guy that conceded was on a similar position with his Wurmcoil Engine, i scooped when he delcared his attack on me. I conceded. He then got pissed off and then i said "remember that time you did this to me?", he shut up and no one did that shit ever again. Now, in case we have to scoop, we do it when we see that some made their combo or you are on an impossible position to recover before combat.
@@MCXL1140 No, it's not. And I pretty well exclusively play EDH; it's not bad sportsmanship. If you don't want to be in the game anymore--that's fine. For instance: I've scooped to someone casting Saw In Half on one of my creatures--not because it targeted anything of mine, but because I refuse to play in a game with un-cards (and I didn't know about the card in the deck prior). I don't find it fun, so I removed myself from an un-fun situation--and I would expect anyone else in a similar situation to do the same.
Not allowing to leave the game at any point allows for hostage games as well as sometimes me conceding allow the 2 other players to have the chance to win the game, more so against infinite targeted loops (aka bounce all your permanents one at the time), or stuff like I gain 1000 life from this attack and Im at 1 so I need this life to win.
You can concede at any point. If you concede in such a way to screw over a players victory and use technicalities outside the playing of the game to eke out wins then no one will want to play with you. This is the same as calling a judge every 30 seconds to try and get someone disqualified on nonsense. Theres plenty of ways into baiting people into 'cheating' like not passing turns clearly or getting em to draw at the wrong time etc. To be really blunt. I can concede in any game any time I want by saying 'I dont want to play anymore' But you dont see people using that in say, settlers of catan or agricola to fuck over people. Thats because the average boardgame player makes the average mtg player look like a spoiled tantrum prone child.
Short answer: No. People need to grow up and you should exclude these people from your pods. Long answer: No. People need to grow up. Understand: players will concede for a few reasons, namely: 1) The game is over for them and they see the series of events that are about to happen leading to their defeat. 2) An opponent is looping/comboing to the point they know they will be dead soon (basically Point 1 but evident to the whole table). 3) They feel they can no longer influence the state of the game. 4) The player has run out of time to play the game (obligations outside the game, emergency IRL, so on). 5) The player wants to give a win to an opponent. 6) The player is spiteful and wants to deny triggers or effects. The first five are valid reasons to concede especially at Instant speed since them conceding or not is going to have little to no impact on the game at this stage. The last reason is an indicator that you are playing with someone that can't take defeat and I would recommend suggesting to play a game more their speed like Chutes & Ladders or maybe even Solitaire. These are the type of people who will get upset if you kill their Commander but they are perfectly content to wipe the board repeatedly with an Avacyn in their Command Zone.
I usually concede if someone can demonstrate a non-deterministic combo, example: Stinkweed Gitrog. They're probably going to win and I'd rather take the probably + shoot forward into a fresh game.
Usually of someone concedes during combat because they know they die, I let the attacking player get rhe triggers as if the defending player was still here. Works well for everyone
Reminds me of the cards in yugioh that had a "win the entire match" rule if they inflicted lethal but because people could concede whenever they would do it before the damage step they had to make any cards with that effect illegal in organized play.
My play group had to pretty much rule zero. That you could only scoop on your turn. If a player scoops out and permanents that player owns are under the control of another player a token copy of said permanent or permanents.
in my playgroup we kinda frown upon conceding if theres more than two players left, anything can happen if the board gets reset. If it's 1v1 and you're 100% gonna lose its fine to concede and go new game not making everybody else wait and this seems to work pretty well for most cases, we play mostly mid power decks tho.
Once I played against a Tergrid player who conceded after I player Supplant Form in response of his Pox, I've targeted Tergrid bouncing his Tergrid back to his hand and making a copy token of her. Then he conceds because if he couldn't get all stuff no one could get it, and argued he was conceding before Supplant Form resolves so I wound't get a copy of tergrid.
Here is the official solution I just made up. If some dingus concedes to deny lifesteal life etc. You call him a dead dingus and that im feeding off yer corpse yer dead, you cant stop me. Any conceding to create in game advantage should be laughed at and openly out loud mocked for being a poor sport. Any conceding cuz yer dead, demoralized, or want to play another round is fine. This isnt hard people, laugh at the freaks for their attempts to manipulate.
my general prefered conced rules are instant speed conceed but a ghost player is put in untill the end of the turn so that conceeding is only a time saving thing and not a spiting a player by not allowing the stack or triggers to resolve properly
This is why Hellkite Tyrants alternative win effect rarely goes off because one guy can concede and take back all the artifacts you took, and now you have less than 20 artifacts to win the game.
I made an assassin deck with the win con if an assassin would make someone lose the game I win the game. It was about to be my turn and I had someone dead to rights. The concedes so I can’t win the game but then have to now work on someone else when my resources were spent to get past his defense. It was the first time I was playing the deck. I couldn’t get any other creature than my commander but I loaded him up with equipment that gave him protections. That kind of saltiness made me not want to play that deck because someone will just do the same thing, cancel my win con by leaving before I can even finish it.
If I'm playing at table and one player is being an rude, annoying, tries to stop everyone else but complains when someone tries to stop them if I am going to lose and can stop them from winning I will 1000% look them in the eye and concede at instant speed. That is the only time I feel like it's ok. If they are going to ruin our fun and whine about our interaction then they 1000% deserve it. At only other time concede when it's your turn or when some one is presenting a game wining action that doesn't require you to be there. Players should be able to leave at any time they want but having a "temp stand in" taking their place until the stack/actions resolve should be put into the rules.
I only concede if no one's deck is working well that round and I just wanna get to the re-do faster and it feels like everyone does. Otherwise I hold on and try to hope my lack of activity makes me less of a threat
Scooping at instant speed is my best answer. Tbh from playing when edh first started till picking it up now. The biggest issue i see is too much variance in deck power and cost. This doesn't even include cedh. A pod could be 4 people of widely varying power levels. From one person to using a modified precon. One with high end cards. Another a home build that can be decent but not consistent. Etc etc. Think pods should be broken up into turns before popping off . Like t1-2 cedh T3-5 high level Etc etc
My buddy in my playgroup does this. If he can't win he will concede. He's 100% a spike player. He even has the highest win ratio of the group but if things aren't going his way he will concede regardless if him conceding affects someone else's chance of winning. It can be quite frustrating especially when we can physically see his aggravation on his face when he doesn't win.
In helping the group, giving the other 2 players a chance to win in spite of the board state helps more people than letting the attacker resolve the situation. OP isn't owed a win. This feels like the person that would benefit from king making being upset that an opponent didn't counter a spell last year.
I keep seeing these comments about sportmanship, but if youre killing someone im not sure how its not honorable for that victim to at least give the remaining players a fighting chance in casual games? It feels like a natural consequence for a player to die to crack back when they went to kill someone on a aggressive board.
@@shonmatthew there is genuinely no sportsmanship to the argument, it's the same as when someone says an entire group of cards of varying strength are morally wrong to play when they simply don't like those cards. Conceding even has a positive effect as it's a tool to leverage for players in bad positions so they can stay in the game rather than be used as a resource for other players to squeeze. People will say it's self centered to do so as if they aren't literally arguing for enabling the player that is already well off to win more and snowball harder, simply put it's a person telling off a person they just shot for spitting blood on them because they are going to have to live with it.
For most things you can just say, pretend i scoop on my turn. I.e. you get a token of that reanimate target and you get the lifelink/gray merchant life.
So should players also be banned from using say an infinitely repeatable pay 1 life effect to lose via a game mechanic if they are banned from conceding?
No, that's an in game effect, which likely either requires some setup or is on board already. I can Wipe Away or Counterspell Wall of Blood, I can Swords to Plowshares it in the first main phase to make you either pull the trigger early or lose access to it. I can attack somebody else knowing you have that option (actually had a similar situation where I lost because I attacked a player with a lifelink creature but missed that he could block and sac the creature before combat damage, if I attacked the other player I would have gained enough life to survive and likely win the game). There's literally no counterplay to concession (which is how it should be, it's a quality of life feature for emergencies or to speed up foregone conclusions, not a "take your ball and go home" game action). Even an enchantment in play that says "Players can't concede" wouldn't actually stop people from being able to concede.
@@dapperghastmeowregard conceding does have counterplay and what it encourages is honestly positive, lets not kid ourselves about using the player whose behind as a juicebox to squeeze combat triggers from being anything but degenerate and something a player should have a right to discourage.
I think it's worth noting that having priority + empty stack is NOT the same as Sorcery speed! As you can still concede during your opponents turn. It's actually what instant speed is, but with the extra requirement of the stack being empty. IMO this seems more fair then sorcery speed, to get out of infinite loops, semi-deterministic loops etc. That is likely why the part about "completing combat" is relevant. However, the interaction described later about stealing a creature could still happen even with the tournament templated rules. (As once it's stolen, as soon as the active player attempts to go to combat, they can only do so after having passed priority around with a empty stack.) In general, just play nicely and with common sense.
Players in my playgroup won’t quit instant speed, but they will announce their forfeit at any moment. Meaning they will quit sorcery speed asap. Which can have other players in the game change their game plan perspective. It’s not as bad as leaving instant speed but it can be irritating.
in our playgroup there is no conceding unless s1 starts going infinite, in our LGS we never had a problem with scooping maybe that also because alot of my playgroup is playing there and we are all in the camp of if s1 leaves to deny you triggers you get them anyway because thats just an asshole move. and if the fucked over player gets assisted by one of the "unaffected" players its hard to argue against. i cant imagine ppl saying "no i need to win this, my friend scooped so i could win" or something like that.
The most powerful magic strategy of all time is basic social skills.
*casts Counter Spell* Good hygiene trumps even basic decorum IMHO. Seriously, folks, wash that booty, brush them teeth, and wear deodorant if you're going to the LGS. 🙏🏼
Impossible mechanic for a commander player
Also reading the rules, the two key skills to not being an arse.
Fr, wouldn't invite most in this comment section to any of my games. How can you be such a bad sport just and then run it of "this is legal". Like they did not play any game in childhood with any houserules. Wtf
@ Litterally yes, i love playing commander, but i usually just enjoying playing with my close group of friend, outside i feel that many players are often, extremely too shy, complaining about a counterspell, with bad manners, not accepting or embracing the political aspect (dont like to make ANY deal or help to beat the archenemy, being really againist talking during the game) and usually i feel a very unpleasant enviroment.
The social Aspect of the game can be quite the bad part of playing commander, my girlfriend and some girl friend i have stated that they felt uncomfortable playing commander with random people during small torneum cause people were “unable to talk to them or communicate with them” treating like they were “new to the game” even if that wasnt true, Same for me, i got a guy talking about my commander (a alela, a woman) as “ a whore,bitch and a hoe” repeatedly during the game, even after i was clear i would like him to stop, lol
I was playing in a pod this past Saturday. One player was taking 5 turns in a row. I asked him if had game, and he said he was looking for it. 2 turns later how found card and started looping.
And I scooped during his turn. The 3rd player in my pod got upset and started yelling that I can't do that and.
I just looked at him and started packing up.
I'm sorry but if I know my opponent has game or I'm just not able to play, then I'm scooping. No sense in wasting both of our time.
Lol imagine not being able to ask if a combo is infinite, so all players can mutually agree that combo man won, and then go onto the next game.
Build a deck that loops infinite turns, but do nothing with the turn other than loop said extra turn spell/time sieve or whatever. Get into a pod with that player and then keep them hostage, and if they try to leave/scoop complain to them that they can't scoop at instant speed, citing the time they claimed the same thing in an oddly similar situation.
I agree with your sentiment, I just don't think your post has anything to do with what's being discussed here: You're not weaponizing conceding at instant speed in this case you're kinda doing the opposite. Yes this is a good example of a reverse scenario when keeping the game casual should mean concede at instant speed but the video is also about keeping the game casual by *NOT* conceding at instant speed.
@@dimitriid it's about quitting at "instant speed". If an opponent is taking all the turns do I really need to wait for them to naturally draw out their deck to thorical before I can quit the game? More so, why can't they just demonstrate their loop and jump to their wincon like every other combo player does in competitive formats?
Yet another reason why commnder blows
In my group people ask to concede.
"my deck isnt doing that great and I know you can kill me anytime"
or "hey, this guy is probably going to win the game so you all want to scoop so we can start up and finish another game before the store closes?"
@MaskedZoo
Yeah when I'm at an LGS I don't want to win as much as I want to play as much games as possible. But when people bring cEDH decks to casual I'll just be like.. "Show me the LED." Or "Show me the Thassa so we can move on to game 2"
@@kakuofwei This was my entire experience with MTG. It was normal for people to bring competitive legacy and competitive vintage decks to new player casual night so they could spend 20 minutes taking their first turn and winning T1 every game. The first few months of me playing 'casual' magic was me drawing 7 cards, waiting 10 to 20 minutes, shuffling the deck, and doing it again for 3 rounds. If I conceded when they did their Rakdos scam combo or whatever, I'd be denied my guaranteed pack for signing up to the event because I "didn't play the game". (That is, it appeared like I was scooping every match because the game would be over too quickly)
In 'casual' commander, every other game was someone getting T1 Ad Nauseum or Thassa combo. The one time I used a Pact of Negation to stop them, they complained that I was a spoilsport, countered it with a Force of Will, and won anyway. And then the table went on a tirade to me about how I shouldn't even be playing the game if I'm going to throw like that.
@@MaskedZoo don't ask to concede, just concede lmao.
@@terratrox7180hey look, the reason I stopped playing magic at my flgs 😂
Now it's kitchen table only, for the sake of my sanity.
@@qriistwhy are you baiting in the comments of a MTG youtube video?
In casual commander, if someone concedes to deny lifelink or whatever the other players should and usually do just pretend they conceded after damage and it's fine.
I think 'concede only at sorcery speed' (aka only on your turn) is silly because turn cycles can take _forever_ in Commander; but 'concede only when _a_ player could cast a sorcery' (so, during a main phase on _any_ turn while the stack is empty) is not unreasonable as an LGS rule or in a cEDH setting.
Literally earlier today though I chose not to concede a game because two of the other players were playing decks that used opponents graveyards as a resource and I didn't want to deny them mine, so I can understand feeling pressured into not conceding. That's probably an issue in cEDH tournaments, especially if two players know each other or something.
In casual… eh just use reasonable judgement and don't be a prick, even if it screws you over, chances are you'll be on the other side in the future anyway. It's the same with takesies-backsies.
If you completely destroy someones chances to win in game don't be suprised when they do anything within the rules to screw you. I alongside most people will react pretty strongly to their deck being hosed or being targeted all game by someone.
@@dongdoodler thats the kind of attitude that keeps me from playing commander
I like how you admitted you're happy to cheat.
I disagree in the strongest possible terms
In a casual setting, using game mechanics to counter antisocial behavior, is completely within your right. It's not different from playing removal on a card you personally don't like when objectively there's probably a better target for it.
In more competitive circles there's nothing wrong with engaging in either intragame politics or as MAD to discourage one play or another.
That's a reasonable part of the game to leverage, and is a genuine drawback to cards like commandeer or steal enchantment or the like.
Yep, if it happens just treat it as they are still there until end of turn.
There is a difference between scooping to expedite the game and scooping for spite or to hurt another players strategy, especially combat steps. You can mitigate both by having a 'ghost clause'. Let anyone quit at any time, but a 'ghost' of that player persists until their next turn. That way people don't scoop to spite a Sword of Feast and Famine trigger and lifeline still works, etc.
I think a good potential rule change for multiplayer formats that would make everyone happy is something like
"Players can concede at any time. If a player concedes at any time other than a main phase when the stack is empty, they will lose the game instantly the next time this is true."
If you wanna pick up your cards and leave the table that's cool, the rest of the table can just treat the board state like your cards are still there until the next time the stack is empty on a main phase
That's sorcery speed scooping, not instant, and is against 800.4e
When someone quits, the stack fizzles and you move through phases immediately to end step.
If you don't like that as a response to your targeting of them over and over? Don't play the game with them or at all...
We are all entitled to play as we wish within the ruleset... We aren't entitled to controlling the actions of others...
@@c0wb0y.crypt0only stuff that that player controlled or that was targeting them won't resolve. The rest of the stack will be just fine.
You also play out the rest of their turn as normal, just with no active player.
800.4j: If a player leaves the game during their turn, that turn continues to its completion without an active player. If the active player would receive priority, instead the next player in turn order receives priority, or the top object on the stack resolves, or the phase or step ends, whichever is appropriate.
Brother neither me or my friend want to resolve 1000 warp world even if he cast them
@@c0wb0y.crypt0Sorcery speed is only in your own turn.
@@c0wb0y.crypt0 There's nothing in the comprehensive rules text about slow play or pubstomping either, but nevertheless they are causing a lot of discord in the community, and thus are strongly discouraged. Sadly, slow play and pubstomping are hard issues to address with rules due to them being so socially complex, but the concede issue isn't. Spite conceding is used maliciously, and thus is undesirable and should be addressed.
It can be resolved with a hard-and-fast rules amendment, unique to the commander format: They could just amend the rule to "In commander, if a player conceded, they would still be considered present at the table, but passing all priority, until the end of the current phase, or until they would die from in-game means before the end of the current phase." It's a rule with 0 downsides.
Most people manage to handle this amicably and with a reasonable degree of empathy without a written rule about it, but we can't assume that all players are like this, and clearly they're not based on this comment section, so addressing it is highly justified.
My LGS has a few rules.
• If a player concedes while other players controlled permanents (or cards in exile) owned by that player, those players get token copies phased in replacing said permanents.
• A player conceding while spells or abilities on the stack are targeting said player, while spells or abilities they control are on the stack, or is being attacked will cause a ghost player to replace said player for the duration with the same life total and with any relevant copies of permanents or spells the conceding player controls in play.
• A ghost player losing the game before all conditions for it existing expire will cause all phased in tokens from the first rule to phase out.
I like these house rules because it doesn't remove agency from the person who was losing the game. they have the power to pick up their cards and leave. as should always be the right of any player at any table.
it's a nice houserule that makes it soo the losing player can move on, and the surviving players continue the game they're in.
@@darklightmagus1222 This is good. Conceding just to harm someone else is never healthy, and this solves that problem
Great ideas. The idea of someone abusing the concussion rule to grief others is whack. It's good to see solid fixes
Those are bad rules, for the most part.
The rule should be you can only concede at the beginning of your turn.
Nope. I'm not taking damage from 1000 elves,watch 7 turns and 12 draws while I have 5 life. Hitting me for 1000 when I have 5 life, you're being a prick. You can do that alone
People who scoop before combat damage to deny triggers and sabotage the gameplan for the opponent are just childish.
My house rule of instant-speed surrenders is, even in cases where I will instant-surrender, is resolve things as if they players just passed priority at every point given.
Yea, you swing out at me, I won't block anything, all triggers resolve. I can see I'm dead, so Imma just scoop it up and let you get your value.
@@TheAngelRaven you don't block for the surving players?
@@shonmatthewblocking does nothing for Lifelink, and if you're going to scoop like that I guess you can't do much to avoid combat damage triggers anyway
@@berserkerciaran it's less lifelink that I'm refering to here as the dying player, but blocking to trade off some creatures so the other two might have a better chance, seems reasonable?
Having a cost to killing a player like losing attacking creatures seems pretty normal right?
But if you just say oh I'm dead, im not blocking, it seems odd not on denying any triggers, lifelink, whatever but that you're making it cost less to kill you?
Unless we mean scooping for some emergency, then yeah, I think it makes sense to just pack up stuff and say have fun do what need to do what ever I gotta go.
Part of my problem with the EDH subreddit is that people dog pile on one unpopular opinion without looking at nuance. I brought up how spite scooping can be seen an unsport/unsportsmanlike conduct by a judge (and said it probably wouldn’t be ruled that way unless a judge was making an example) and got downvoted to hell “cause it’s in the rules” even though part of the point of it is to protect competitive integrity and the environment. People won’t want to play decks that rely on triggers that need an opponent, if play at all, at an LGS where scooping to screw over an opponent is allowed and/or encouraged. Nuance is important, and communication is important - if you had something come up, say it so you don’t look like a spiteful prick when you scoop.
Just because you can doesn’t mean you should. The rules start to get wonky in a multiplayer game, and the competitive integrity and environment start to get damaged as people use the rules to hurt others instead of gaining an advantage.
I've had people concede to a game winning combo and cause it to fizzle because I targeted them first. It's a bad feeling.
You play to win, not play to eliminate your opponents. If I need to leave or there are other external circumstances, I’ll concede if necessary, but generally if a game action (including conceding) isn’t moving me towards a win, I’m not taking the action. Legal game actions are legal game actions, but I might not wanna play with you again if you play that way.
I remember a game where I received an emergency call from my family mid-game. Instant scooping is important.
But EDH is a casual format. How the other players deal with this situation is entirely up to them. You could have an informal house rule to resolve any upcoming triggers regarding the leaving player.
My first deck was Kardur Doomscourge about 2 years ago, and once I started upgrading it my friends who I'd play with at home would concede just so they wouldn't have to attack each other, then the person with 90 power on board just smashes me. It'd make me angry so whenever I had the chance to severely screw them over by conceding, I did so. They stopped shortly after.
Its also a diffrent mindset for irl than online aswell, you can play the most toxic combo contol decks online all day non stop, you take that to a store no one is going to play you.
I literally exclusively play a stasis/orbs and have had only 2-3% of people react negatively, I honestly think it's more of a player/social awareness issue that gets amplified when a player plays cards that forcibly disrupts others and makes them acknowledge them.
If someone concedes at instant speed in order to try and spite the player who is about to kill them, I just treat it as if it didn’t happen. Be a baby, I’ll treat you like a baby. What will you do about it ? You are no longer in the game 🤷♀️.
If you try to scoop to deny someone say lifelink damage or combat damage triggers dont be that guy. And if someone does do that, just give the triggers to the player.
@@michaelcollins4534 Stop cheating.
Or let the redeclare attackers because the target is no longer there.
@rubikagaming9321 No.
@qriist bro is like I want to make sure my losing makes you lose.
@rubikagaming9321 yes, that's generally how you treat an enemy.
It's extremely rare to see someone concede at instant speed. At least in face to face paper games. I dont know what online environment is like. In situations like this were the player needed that life gain. Me as another player at the table would of told them to gain that life even though the other player scooped before they hit them.
I’ve multiple times had someone scoop before damage so I didn’t get my combat damage abilities. It’s very frustrating because he does it for the other person at the table to “have a chance” even if I think I don’t have a chance without it. He also hasn’t been seen in some time, so I don’t know what happened to the guy
@exiledhero3791 in my experience with in person games at shops or cons most other players at the table will just play it out like that person is still there even though they scooped. Because of how bs and petty it is to do it. In my area players like that who do it more then one time either get banned from the shop on the extreme end or not allowed to come to commander events at the very least.
It has been common for me. Especially with my werewolf deck.
Happened to me and a friend with two randoms. My friend attack with the big dino who can bring dinos into play when he is doing combat dmg to a player and the opp conceded after the attack was declared on purpose to cancel the trigger.
@@C42ST3N as i mentioned i would of just told your friend and the other player "ill let it resolve as if it was unblocked".
The whole situation goes against the spirit of commander. The solution, never play with those children again.
Conceding as an option literally enables group politics and works to help the player doing worst to be left alone, that might be peak spirit.
It’s funny how quickly the problem players rat on themselves in the comment section.
Agreed. So many cheaters.
@@qriist no you are the problem player actually 🥲
I think you misunderstood what we meant.
We all know what the rules say.
But as a group we choose to let the game progress without having pure spite plays affect it.
We know it's not how the game is supposed to be played but we have fun this way.
And if you concede to prevent triggers well I think most people won't play with you next game...
@@qriist 🫠🫠🫠
@@qriist I think letting someone go through their turn impacted by spite is not being a problem
It is not following the official rules, that's true
@@martinheraud1744 any interaction option can be considered morally wrong if you explicitly frame it as only to be spiteful and don't acknowledge it's uses, conceding is no exception to that, genuinely think about it because it has very interesting uses as a tool to win games.
Yes, a player can conceded at any time. However due to the multiplayer nature of EDH, you are affecting multiple other people if you do that like in this case. In constructed its irrelevant since its 1v1 if you concede the other player automatically wins. In EDH there might still be three others playing and now the outcome is likely affected.
It has been this way literally forever though. It wouldn't take much to change this, but it isn't broken or anything. Just the way it works.
And yeah the outcome is affected, but that is how the game works. It is literally in the rules. Before you ever built an EDH deck (and likely before you ever looked at your first card) the rules worked like this.
So it would be foolish to build a deck that eliminates one player at a time AND needs to benefit from that.
You know what many 1 toughness creatures were unplayable in legacy since june of 2023? Dies to bowmaster. Do you know why creatures with toughness 3 or less were considered unplayable in legacy and modern for like a decade or more? Dies to bolt.
If EDH players actually understood that they were playing in a format that is as powerful as any other eternal format they'd shut up about this.
Why don't you play your lifegain deck anymore? It dies to concede.
The big thing is dont be a dick about it. Dont concede just to screw someone over and assure the other players that you had fun.
aye I conceded at instant speed to heroically help the two players who weren't in as good a spot as the 1 who was attacking people out of the game. for 0 political advantage mind you because I still lost.
I have positively affected half the table with my noble decision. which they agreed was nice because they proceeded to turn around a bad situation thanks to my losing.
@@michaelsander2878 bad take tbh. You can answer to a card, you cannot answer to the rule of the game
@@highroller5335 was it really that noble though if that person would have won fair and square?
Idk man, seems more scummy and spiteful.
My group has a rule of "no scooping out of spite." We can scoop at instant speed if it doesn't affect the outcome of other players, but even if it's sorcery speed we don't scoop if it's specifically to kingmake in some way. A perfect example of that is one of us plays Rendmaw, Creaking Nest. There are loops that give everyone an arbitrarily large number of tapped goaded bird tokens. If no one can concede, the other players take each other out and then Rendmaw finishes off the last one, but someone could kingmake by taking out one player and conceding after combat, allowing the last remaining player to take out the Rendmaw player since there's no other players to attack. Even with conceding at sorcery speed, it's a dick move there because it's specifically to screw over the player that would normally win.
My personal feeling is that concession should resolve at end step. Concede at sorcery speed is fine until someone goes infinite and holds the game hostage.
With concession resolving at end step, you can still get up and leave whenever, but the game state will treat it as though you are still present until the turn ends. When you concede, from that point you automatically pass priority and are not obligated to be present. If someone controls cards you own, they can use token stand ins until end of turn. This way no one is screwed by a concession, and no one is obligated to stick around.
I mean, someone going infinite should end the game in minutes. If players don’t understand their deck, they shouldn’t be playing it.
@@Stonehorn I agree with you, but 2 points I'd like to raise.
1. Some people are just "that guy". They will purposefully prolong the game to play solitaire with themselves. Could they have won 15 minutes ago? Absolutely, but they didn't.
2. Sometimes someone just fails to get there. It is rare, but I don't always want to stick around for 20 minutes to see if they do.
Hence my suggestion above.
Salty scoop is annoying. I only scoop when I know I can't do anything that game. Like I draw something that doesn't help why continues. But I rarely Salty scoop.
This is my single biggest MTG pet peeve. I have no problem with conceding a game you have no capacity to "come back" in. I even encourage it so we can finish up a game faster, and shuffle up, letting us ALL get into more games. But do it with tact and respect. If a player is declaring actions on you to get some triggers, or performing / performed actions based on the understanding that you were still in the game, and THEN you choose to concede specifically to spite that player and deny them their triggers... that's not kosher bro. Sadly that seems to be a minority opinion.
My play group can usually see or notice when someone is clearly about to win and can all mutually agree to scoop (winner also agrees), congratulate homie on his win and shuffle up for the next game. It's a game. Not a big deal.
Tho what is someone has a way out if they are forgotten, like they have a bounce all attacking creatures in hand. You kinda force them to reveal they have something, where that might change the plays of the active player what makes them win for sure. The info of knowing them having something is information you more or less give away, information that they shouldnt have.
Noteworthy: while I'm in agreement and usually am in favor of resolving the situation as if the concession doesn't take place, there is one exception. If you can cause yourself to lose with game actions, it "is* fair to stifle another player's advantage.
So, pay all your life out and die mid-attack using in game effects, no sword of feast and famine trigger, etc.
@@Shethwind Conceding is a game action.
During a casual game I had to leave because my ride was there. He asked for just another minute. I asked her if it was okay. She said it was fine. He spent several turns counter spelling everything I played and expected me to stay there while he eventually grabs a combo which he didnt have in hand. Players should be able to just concede.
That's literally the point of concession. The issue is when people abuse it like it's a secret game action rather than a quality of life feature.
I dabble in cedh with friends and we have a running joke whenever gitrog or magda go off thats like: "Oh you concede? In response dredge a land, discard land, dredge, etc" conceding is instant speed after all! That said whenever a game gets to that point the entire table is well into gg go next territory including the one going off (Gitrog comboes are PAINFUL)
I was playing a janky Pamrikon fling deck. When someone suddenly conceded, I lost the next turn. It sucked. He then complained, in another game, when I threatened to do the same about quitting over life link the whole pod was furious. I made the point, it was the same lack of sportsmanship issues. They ignored it, so I left the pod.
Fun fact a lot of people miss is that if a player concedes (on their turn) their turn finishes/phases as normal so you still get all your different effects if anything happens during that turn/end of turn.
I would allow the stack to resolve and that would be the last time I personally play with that individual. Actions have consequences, he/she chose to impact the game outcome by leaving in a malicious way, so I choose to avoid that happening again 😊
Do I feel bad not offering a second chance? Not really, my free time is precious. That said everyone I play commander with at the moment are amazing fun loving people and this just wouldn't happen and I love that about them
At a store you are there to play a GAME not play with FRIENDS.
If someone ruins the game, they are a bad person to play games with and you dont play with them. Simple as.
The only value you have to each other is in the game.
I used to play boardgame nights at an LGS every week. This was very very easy for people to solve. We had a good crew.
Dont know why mtg commander freaks are such trouble. If you can play 4-6 player boardgames with strangers all night one would think a game of EDH would be braindead simple.
Spite scooping and kingmaking out of spite are both bad, whether the environment is toxic or the player.
Being chill and making sure everyone at the table is given a good chance to have fun (including yourself) is the best solution
Articulate why turnabout isn't Fairplay and why leaving a game when you are not longer in a position to win or have fun, is Toxic or Bad...
Go ahead... I will wait for your narcissistic response of "What about my game!?"
@@c0wb0y.crypt0 I think that's not the point he made.
You're right, if you feel like you don't enjoy the game for any reason, you can leave without causing any trouble.
The only thing is that if you do it mid combat, it is a bit rude, because conceding in response to an attack is not something we are prepared for.
In the specific case of the video I would maybe let the attacking player get the lifegain for instance.
And that’s the key. Nothing wrong with kingmaking. But conceding as a means to that is just dirty
Personally I am sick of thassas oracle. We have a commander fnm with 12-16 players in pods of 4, and I'll ask if they have thassas oracle in deck. If yes, I concede and walk away.
Yeah, I think this is just the same usual bad communication and whingeing we always get from EDH.
I let people quick playing at any point. If someone is always doing it at wildly inappropriate moments like mid-stack resolution, I'll talk to them. If someone is a jerk and always abusing the charity of the group we 86 them. The old "Hey man, you suck, bye-bye!".
As far as someone needing a toilet or something: Let then go. Take a little break. Idk. People take this stuff too seriously.
@@Monkey_D._Elliott real! Excellently said!
In a game with Ramses Assassin Lord, considering conceding at instant speed just makes him entirely useless, we should probably acknowledge the game was never designed for it.
it is a pure fact that the conceding rules were designed for 1v1, its why players have house rules that designed for 1v1v1v1
@@lloydnoid6506 Essentially yeah, although less that it wasn't designed for it (it works fine in 1v1) and more that it's SUPPOSED to be a quality of life feature to either speed up a foregone conclusion or because obviously sometimes real life intervenes (plus it stops the classic "I have lethal but lemme spend 30 minutes trying to set up this conbo" situations).
The problem is that certain... socially stunted individuals think they're tactical geniuses for realizing they can effectively cheat by abusing said QOL feature. Like if they remade Mario Party with a save state feature, they'd be the ones save stating before each minigame and resetting until they win because "The game lets me do it, so it's a valid strategy."
I play with the official rules of mtg where I can give up and say u beat me at any time!
It has a different kind of power in multiplayer formats as that very first example shows.
There's no official rules for commander, wasn't even a WotC run format until *VERY* recently and they still haven't done a single ruling about commander yet so yeah, you go have fun at official formats where you could get away with that statement without being seeing as the a**hole by basically everybody.
Na I'ma scoop so you lose on purpose. Not my fault you bullied my life to gain some life. Now you lose like me.
Edit: unless I'm the actual table threat, I'll take the loss and let you get your life with a smile.
Nah that ish is gonna resolve brother. Someone scoops cuz they're salty? No prob, that stack is resolving lol.
I’m going to just keep playing by the official rules. Instant speed scoop.
We (our LGS) frown upon conceding "at instant speed" and view that in tournaments as spite play and punishable. Kinda hardcore but the alternative is pretty much worse imo.
Edit: In general our LGS is really cool and friendly, most players that play there are happy when someone pops off and is taking the win, so I guess it's all about having a decent community 😅
My pod only conceeds as a group if someone is clearly way ahead. We have never had a solo conceed.
Good pod
I guess so, just me and the boys!
This is the kinda of cry baby bs that ruins the game. If you can’t win , don’t take it out on everyone else.
Go ahead and spitescoop. Next game, I will come for you and you alone.
The major problem is that the scooping player did so to intentionally cause OP to lose. I had that happen to be once. My life total was low and I had a few creatures with lifelink. I attacked a player with no blockers, and he immediately scooped once my attackers were declared. I didn't gain any life and I had fewer blockers, so the next player was able to take me out on his turn.
This seems to be the main way something like this happens, a player attacks because they can gain some benefit by doing damage, and the player they're attacking scoops to prevent that. If nothing else, when that happens, the attacking players should get to go back to before the declare attackers step. I doubt the intention of scooping at instant speed was for players to be able to do something like this.
"My opponent can prevent me from gaining an advantage as their last game action." should be part of your risk assessment. Misplays like that will often be okayed to roll back at the tables I've been at, however. Just don't let yourself think that it wasn't a misplay.
@@GolfJuliettWhiskey You make a fair point, as conceding at instant speed is the official rule. I suppose I should clarify that I think that rule needs adjusted to account for this kind of situation. I know you could just rule-zero it, but if you're in a situation like the OP in the video and playing with randoms at an LGS, having to rule-zero something every single time, particularly on a rule that feels so unintuitive, feels like it calls for just a slight rules adjustment. If nothing else, if you lock in your declared attackers, and one of the players you're attacking scoops, you should be able to reassign those attackers if there is an eligible target. I doubt such a rule would be implemented, as it would be a bit too convoluted to not be on a case-by-case basis, but still, I feel that scooping to spite another player's actions should be discouraged.
@@lordroyalnightmare The things is be conscious to avoid is creating scenarios in which the player that currently has the option to strategically concede becomes a consequence-free "lifelink and ophidian Pinata" that is forced by the rules to take the beating.
It's a rule that as it currently exists puts agency into the hands of the at time of interaction most disadvantaged player.
I don't think it's unreasonable to expect players that are in a position to win the game to act with this risk in mind and strategize accordingly.
But I am weary that rules changes that disadvantage and remove agency from players already on the verge of losing, to improve the quality of life of players that are winning, could essentially create a "sanctioned bullying" pattern.
@@GolfJuliettWhiskey Fair enough, giving a losing player some options to impact the game makes sense. I just think there should be a reasonable limit. If a losing player can scoop to prevent another player from attacking them for lifelink and damage triggers, I think it's reasonable enough that they could just scoop before combat and take the option away, rather than scoop after their attackers are locked in and preventing the benefits
This phantom technique severs the link formed by a game of magic the gathering, but the maidens scorn those who abuse its use.
It's frustrating when I'm playing goad and the enemy recognizing they have no way to win, would concede in order to mitigate my goad effect.
When I first bought my K'rrik that deck had this demon theme + the thing that trade life with your opponents. The gameplan was go as low as possible, then use one of the life trade spells or creatures as a 'Gotcha!'. One day one of those guys that I play with just said 'In response, I'm conceding'. The spell whiffed and there was I with 2 life points and nothing more.
This sort of thing started to become the main counter to my deck so rebuilt it from scratch and it in the most competitive shit a person can imagine. Right now it is my only deck that has a turn 1 win condition - there's quite the warped pleasure in looking at the eyes of the players when you cast a enormous Torment of Hailfire early as turn two and you see those fuckers looking around trying to see if they have a response...
...And you tell "Why don't you fucking concede?"
This is why we don't concede at instant speed. Because it creates supervillains.
"Cool. so player 4 is gone. can i get my effect players 2 and 3?"
it takes the players still in the game to deny you the effect. not the guy who conceded. thats one of the benefits of a casual format.
@@caiubibarros6969 Yeah, it seems totally believable that you bounced from playing a $45 precon into a turn 2 winning powerhouse because some rando beat you once.
@@BatCaveOzHe did say that a guy did it once and people started to use the same method to beat his deck. It's quite easy to make krrik go very fast and that's what it's known for at higher power tables.
Common concede hater L, getting punished for skill issue over extending and having a crashout by playing Cedh deck in casual.
If you are making the game unfun for someone, i dont see why they cant just concede. The goal is to beat the others at the table and concession is a step in that direction.
It's kinda like a duel mentality for some. FACE MY CARDBOARD SWORDS LIKE A MAN.
The idea of prompting concession as win strategy seems like a bad time. Either it works and you’re the only one having fun, or everyone targets you once they figure out your deck.
@@AgentMurphy286 i mean like both parties have alotted time for the hobby and want their skills respected but for some a concession rings hollow victory.
Conceding to force someone's stuff to fizzle is just insanely salty and cowardly imo. You just wasted this person time for no reason other than "I lose so we lose."
@@B3A5TorSomething why do you want the enemy who killed you to win?
Blue players are the first to quit when you turn the tables too. Its my favorite part of shop events. Watching blue players get upset and leave
very unsportsmanlike behavior .Those two should be avoided for future games. weak sauce instant speed concessions. total bs
Next time someone does that to me, I will wait till next game and use everything I have against them
A out that beginning section: Yes. Blue prevents you from playing the game. Green also smacks you for 20dmg with several battle related keywords at a time. Both are pretty bullshit, but its what they do lol. One of those things where you can't do too much about it otherwise you kinda screw with the flavor the playerbase as a whole holds in high regard. Which also makes it too easy to not do ebough when addressing it and leads to an excuse on the dev's part.
EDIT: To the main point: it should justnbe treated as everything going through. Personally as someone who basicallybonly plays 1v1 formats I dont particularly think someone missing triggers that would be beneficial should be considered as unsportsmanlike, but its not something I'm too invested in to care about. Treating it like everything just goes through would still cause a couple issues in some fri ge cases, but its the most reasonable interpretation of a concession imho
Literally just tell them no. I gain my lifelink and draw my cards, or redirect my attacks, one of the two. If the other players don't want to play like normal people just dont play with them anymore. If you quit the game and still try to have some say is absolutely crazy and is not happening to me
I think a big part of this is... If you are worried about legality... Stop playing casual.
@@jeffwren7815 Stop cheating.
I don't really understand this take, everyone has a different understanding and definition of casual, and some players know more about the games than others. Imo it's perfectly fine to be new and want to learn more. Ignorance isn't a sin and neither is wanting to learn.
@@qriist maybe you dont know what rule 0 Is ... Stop being ignorant about it
@@vittoriosavian9964 Rejected. Play by the rules.
@@qriistbro thats literally the point of this video. You can concede at any time. Did you even watch?
at our gamestore and the pod i play in we use the rule that u are only allowed to fold at sorcery speed to avoid these situations
I've had hands go bad a few times and scooped only to be told I threw off another persons plans.
Conceding at Instant speed is the ideal.
Imagine having to wait and concede at sorcery speed on your turn. Think of the nightmare that would be.
It wouldn’t be, you can just say your passing priority on everything your opponent does, declaring no blockers, and go on about your night. Then the game goes as it would have. Scooping at instant speed to try and make someone else loses just shows you’re terrible at commander.
one easy way to make the rule work in casual is to make it based on time. If you are going to die this turn and in an acceptable amount of time and game actions, just sit there and take the damage like an adult
Yes its legal. If someone does something like this to my Zedruu deck, i will stop using it and i will use only cedh decks against that person
Common concede hater L, if you put someone in a position where they should threaten to take you down with them then you fumbled and crashing out by playing Cedh decks against them is just going to cement you as not valuing other players as anything but a means to self appeasement.
The way I see it, it comes under "fair play". Leaving before triggers to ruin someone's game is unsportsmanlike.
In our table, no one actually "give up", individually, there is only a collective "we concede, scoop and another round?".
If I want to give up, but someone at the table believes he can keep up, I keep playing until the game actually finishes, one way or another.
Sometimes it is boring to play a match that is already over, a newbie just can't see it yet, but it's part of the game, of teaching game awareness and helping others improve, so my table gets better.
That said, I play with the same group of people, since there isn't a lgs where I live.
this is such a weird take lol
You need to play with a more respectful group. Players should only concede at sorcery speed. Turn 0 agreements
I like conceding only during your turn at sorcery speed (preferably after draw before main phase), or "between turns"
I remember when people wanted to change conceding time because of the one legendary assassin guy.
As a blue player, I love playing white with no blue and packing it with off color counter spells
One time with one of my Doctor Who decks (Was either a modified paradox powers list or modified Timey-wimey deck, forgot which) I managed to cast Inevitable Betrayal with my chosen target being the dinosaur player (Because I figured they had the best targets as dinosaurs are famously large and beefy) and the dinosaur player assuming what creature I was gonna get, just scooped. Thus because my target left the game, I got nothing out of the card. That felt awful.
No, it isn't.
Forcing your opponent to be on his seat until you end your turn is disrespectful.
Trying to make an opponent lose in a way that doesn’t help you win is disrespectful
@Bloody-Butterfly Also, but that is different.
It’s ok to scoop at instant speed if one of your opponents has and presents a win, and nobody has interaction. Then it’s a “you got us, well played, ggs” and not a “YoU cAn’T dO tHaT!” Tho I will often ask that players demonstrate a combo or loop if I’m not familiar with them or their game (and I present my own loop/win, such as Edward Kenway infinite turns)
So people are mad that blue players are playing blue as it’s meant to be played?
The casual EDh bullshit has gone too far.
Scooping is a bitch move.
Scooping is based, so is blue.
Both are things you can do.
Yes
@@sablesalt agreeing with scooping to cause another person to lose value just shows me that your terrible at commander.
@@jordo2604 no it's called deterrence and I play around the same thing just fine despite relying on combat triggers for the majority of my turn so skill issue.
@@sablesalt crazy how your the only one defending scooping, because you’re one of the ones that do it.
Wouldnt the best solution to be changing the rule to be "any player may concede during any non-combat phase while the stack is empty" or something like that.
Either way, salt scooping is yet another reason to avoid EDH imo.
Wait... not playing is considered unfun?
I as a yugioh player did not notice xD
(The joke is, current dominant yugioh strategy is to speedrun preventing your opponent from doing anything for the rest of the game)
To be fair, yugioh players also realise that this is a competitive game and not whatever rule-zero social construct ruleset EDH is supposed to go by.
I have rarely conceded at instant speed, and only once to screw someone over. However that person was my brother, and we were playing with one of our close friends, so it was pretty lighthearted.
In my group, you're allowed to concede at any point, but let the abilities resolve. So for instance, that lifelink player will gain life from the attacked player who left. That player just won't exist in the game any longer. I pilot Davros, Dalek Creator. If someone concedes after I pelt them with an instance of 3 damage, I still get to make a Dalek and still get the villainous choice. In regards to the villainous choice and that player isn't there in person, either the other players vote for what I get or we flip a coin/roll a die.
After gegtting ganged up by 3 players I did it to deny life link when I had no way of doing anything. And I enforced that the "he would have gotten"-BS didn't go through. Sorry not sorry.
Sounds like a bad table or you were the one ahead.
My groups rule for consession. Is if you say well you got me. Im gona. Scoop up. But do your attacks like im still here.. wouldnt he fair to take away their thought out decision to mean nothing. No rug pulls allowed
I’ve recently gotten back into Mtg, and while I basically have to read any card that isn’t at minimum 8 years old twice over to understand the new whatever and whatnot’s. I remember enough from the days of EDH and CEDH being the decision of what deck someone played at the table to know when a games over about 1-2 turns ahead of schedule give or take another players percent chance of drawing or having an answer in proportion to their deck building habits. My solution to this is to “faux-scoop”. I audibly will usually explain how the game is over assuming any competence in my opponent, and go on to prepare for my next game if I’m using a different deck or go peep singles unless I need to return to do the motions like a judge would CEDH. In this way, the person going off gets to go off, I’m not sitting somewhere bored out of my mind for another 15 minutes. And if by some miracle the game state resets (which definitely happens, rare but it does) you can basically walk of shame your way back into it without looking like too much of a cry baby. I definitely wouldn’t have comtinued the example game past them trying to argue the triggers not going off irregardless of the other dude picking his cards up. Never worth continuing to interact with those kind.
My group just has a rule we all agree to. If, for some reason, a player has to leave in a situation like that, we just reset to the last endstep/upkeep. Otherwise, we wait til after the next turn. The game is already competitive enough without people being jerks.
This once happened to me in a game after declaring an attack with my Wurmcoil Engine, it obviously pissed me off. I still won the game but no having those 6 aditional lives left me on quite a tight spot. Like 2 months later, i played with basically the same people and the guy that conceded was on a similar position with his Wurmcoil Engine, i scooped when he delcared his attack on me. I conceded. He then got pissed off and then i said "remember that time you did this to me?", he shut up and no one did that shit ever again.
Now, in case we have to scoop, we do it when we see that some made their combo or you are on an impossible position to recover before combat.
Rules say you can concede at any time. That's how it works.
Still bad sportsmanship
@@MCXL1140 Nope.
@@MCXL1140 No, it's not. And I pretty well exclusively play EDH; it's not bad sportsmanship. If you don't want to be in the game anymore--that's fine. For instance: I've scooped to someone casting Saw In Half on one of my creatures--not because it targeted anything of mine, but because I refuse to play in a game with un-cards (and I didn't know about the card in the deck prior). I don't find it fun, so I removed myself from an un-fun situation--and I would expect anyone else in a similar situation to do the same.
@@BAAWAKnight bait or braindead call it
@@BAAWAKnight not only is Saw in Half black border, it's also in BLC. Scooping for that is bad sportsmanship
Not allowing to leave the game at any point allows for hostage games as well as sometimes me conceding allow the 2 other players to have the chance to win the game, more so against infinite targeted loops (aka bounce all your permanents one at the time), or stuff like I gain 1000 life from this attack and Im at 1 so I need this life to win.
You can concede at any point. If you concede in such a way to screw over a players victory and use technicalities outside the playing of the game to eke out wins then no one will want to play with you. This is the same as calling a judge every 30 seconds to try and get someone disqualified on nonsense. Theres plenty of ways into baiting people into 'cheating' like not passing turns clearly or getting em to draw at the wrong time etc.
To be really blunt. I can concede in any game any time I want by saying 'I dont want to play anymore'
But you dont see people using that in say, settlers of catan or agricola to fuck over people.
Thats because the average boardgame player makes the average mtg player look like a spoiled tantrum prone child.
Short answer: No. People need to grow up and you should exclude these people from your pods.
Long answer: No. People need to grow up. Understand: players will concede for a few reasons, namely: 1) The game is over for them and they see the series of events that are about to happen leading to their defeat. 2) An opponent is looping/comboing to the point they know they will be dead soon (basically Point 1 but evident to the whole table). 3) They feel they can no longer influence the state of the game. 4) The player has run out of time to play the game (obligations outside the game, emergency IRL, so on). 5) The player wants to give a win to an opponent. 6) The player is spiteful and wants to deny triggers or effects. The first five are valid reasons to concede especially at Instant speed since them conceding or not is going to have little to no impact on the game at this stage. The last reason is an indicator that you are playing with someone that can't take defeat and I would recommend suggesting to play a game more their speed like Chutes & Ladders or maybe even Solitaire. These are the type of people who will get upset if you kill their Commander but they are perfectly content to wipe the board repeatedly with an Avacyn in their Command Zone.
@@Sonic177sChannel The last is also valid, as you are the enemy.
I usually concede if someone can demonstrate a non-deterministic combo, example: Stinkweed Gitrog. They're probably going to win and I'd rather take the probably + shoot forward into a fresh game.
Usually of someone concedes during combat because they know they die, I let the attacking player get rhe triggers as if the defending player was still here.
Works well for everyone
Cheating benefits no one.
@@qriist what ?
@@martinheraud1744 You just advocated cheating.
@@qriist oh, yes, it's commander, let's have fun
@@martinheraud1744 Cheating isn't fun.
Kinda amaze that we are discussing such a thing in 2024
Reminds me of the cards in yugioh that had a "win the entire match" rule if they inflicted lethal but because people could concede whenever they would do it before the damage step they had to make any cards with that effect illegal in organized play.
My play group had to pretty much rule zero. That you could only scoop on your turn. If a player scoops out and permanents that player owns are under the control of another player a token copy of said permanent or permanents.
in my playgroup we kinda frown upon conceding if theres more than two players left, anything can happen if the board gets reset. If it's 1v1 and you're 100% gonna lose its fine to concede and go new game not making everybody else wait and this seems to work pretty well for most cases, we play mostly mid power decks tho.
Once I played against a Tergrid player who conceded after I player Supplant Form in response of his Pox, I've targeted Tergrid bouncing his Tergrid back to his hand and making a copy token of her. Then he conceds because if he couldn't get all stuff no one could get it, and argued he was conceding before Supplant Form resolves so I wound't get a copy of tergrid.
Here is the official solution I just made up.
If some dingus concedes to deny lifesteal life etc. You call him a dead dingus and that im feeding off yer corpse yer dead, you cant stop me.
Any conceding to create in game advantage should be laughed at and openly out loud mocked for being a poor sport.
Any conceding cuz yer dead, demoralized, or want to play another round is fine.
This isnt hard people, laugh at the freaks for their attempts to manipulate.
my general prefered conced rules are instant speed conceed but a ghost player is put in untill the end of the turn so that conceeding is only a time saving thing and not a spiting a player by not allowing the stack or triggers to resolve properly
This is why Hellkite Tyrants alternative win effect rarely goes off because one guy can concede and take back all the artifacts you took, and now you have less than 20 artifacts to win the game.
Yes, same thing happened to me with Insurrection
I made an assassin deck with the win con if an assassin would make someone lose the game I win the game. It was about to be my turn and I had someone dead to rights. The concedes so I can’t win the game but then have to now work on someone else when my resources were spent to get past his defense. It was the first time I was playing the deck. I couldn’t get any other creature than my commander but I loaded him up with equipment that gave him protections.
That kind of saltiness made me not want to play that deck because someone will just do the same thing, cancel my win con by leaving before I can even finish it.
If I'm playing at table and one player is being an rude, annoying, tries to stop everyone else but complains when someone tries to stop them if I am going to lose and can stop them from winning I will 1000% look them in the eye and concede at instant speed. That is the only time I feel like it's ok. If they are going to ruin our fun and whine about our interaction then they 1000% deserve it.
At only other time concede when it's your turn or when some one is presenting a game wining action that doesn't require you to be there. Players should be able to leave at any time they want but having a "temp stand in" taking their place until the stack/actions resolve should be put into the rules.
I only concede if no one's deck is working well that round and I just wanna get to the re-do faster and it feels like everyone does. Otherwise I hold on and try to hope my lack of activity makes me less of a threat
Scooping at instant speed is my best answer.
Tbh from playing when edh first started till picking it up now. The biggest issue i see is too much variance in deck power and cost.
This doesn't even include cedh.
A pod could be 4 people of widely varying power levels. From one person to using a modified precon. One with high end cards. Another a home build that can be decent but not consistent. Etc etc.
Think pods should be broken up into turns before popping off .
Like t1-2 cedh
T3-5 high level
Etc etc
My buddy in my playgroup does this. If he can't win he will concede. He's 100% a spike player. He even has the highest win ratio of the group but if things aren't going his way he will concede regardless if him conceding affects someone else's chance of winning. It can be quite frustrating especially when we can physically see his aggravation on his face when he doesn't win.
In our community you can surrender only when you can play sorcery if we have 3 or more players.
It rule solve more problems
In helping the group, giving the other 2 players a chance to win in spite of the board state helps more people than letting the attacker resolve the situation. OP isn't owed a win. This feels like the person that would benefit from king making being upset that an opponent didn't counter a spell last year.
I keep seeing these comments about sportmanship, but if youre killing someone im not sure how its not honorable for that victim to at least give the remaining players a fighting chance in casual games?
It feels like a natural consequence for a player to die to crack back when they went to kill someone on a aggressive board.
@@shonmatthew there is genuinely no sportsmanship to the argument, it's the same as when someone says an entire group of cards of varying strength are morally wrong to play when they simply don't like those cards.
Conceding even has a positive effect as it's a tool to leverage for players in bad positions so they can stay in the game rather than be used as a resource for other players to squeeze.
People will say it's self centered to do so as if they aren't literally arguing for enabling the player that is already well off to win more and snowball harder, simply put it's a person telling off a person they just shot for spitting blood on them because they are going to have to live with it.
For most things you can just say, pretend i scoop on my turn. I.e. you get a token of that reanimate target and you get the lifelink/gray merchant life.
So should players also be banned from using say an infinitely repeatable pay 1 life effect to lose via a game mechanic if they are banned from conceding?
No, that's an in game effect, which likely either requires some setup or is on board already. I can Wipe Away or Counterspell Wall of Blood, I can Swords to Plowshares it in the first main phase to make you either pull the trigger early or lose access to it. I can attack somebody else knowing you have that option (actually had a similar situation where I lost because I attacked a player with a lifelink creature but missed that he could block and sac the creature before combat damage, if I attacked the other player I would have gained enough life to survive and likely win the game).
There's literally no counterplay to concession (which is how it should be, it's a quality of life feature for emergencies or to speed up foregone conclusions, not a "take your ball and go home" game action).
Even an enchantment in play that says "Players can't concede" wouldn't actually stop people from being able to concede.
@@dapperghastmeowregard conceding does have counterplay and what it encourages is honestly positive, lets not kid ourselves about using the player whose behind as a juicebox to squeeze combat triggers from being anything but degenerate and something a player should have a right to discourage.
I think it's worth noting that having priority + empty stack is NOT the same as Sorcery speed! As you can still concede during your opponents turn. It's actually what instant speed is, but with the extra requirement of the stack being empty. IMO this seems more fair then sorcery speed, to get out of infinite loops, semi-deterministic loops etc.
That is likely why the part about "completing combat" is relevant.
However, the interaction described later about stealing a creature could still happen even with the tournament templated rules. (As once it's stolen, as soon as the active player attempts to go to combat, they can only do so after having passed priority around with a empty stack.)
In general, just play nicely and with common sense.
Players in my playgroup won’t quit instant speed, but they will announce their forfeit at any moment. Meaning they will quit sorcery speed asap. Which can have other players in the game change their game plan perspective.
It’s not as bad as leaving instant speed but it can be irritating.
in our playgroup there is no conceding unless s1 starts going infinite, in our LGS we never had a problem with scooping maybe that also because alot of my playgroup is playing there and we are all in the camp of if s1 leaves to deny you triggers you get them anyway because thats just an asshole move. and if the fucked over player gets assisted by one of the "unaffected" players its hard to argue against. i cant imagine ppl saying "no i need to win this, my friend scooped so i could win" or something like that.
I always wait until my upkeep to scoop, or if it's down to 1v1 and there is no chance to win. Scooping on someone else's turn is BM.