Who wants to talk about spite scooping?

[DirkGently]

Wait wait wait, don't bail, I swear this is a new twist on it.

I think the common consensus among commander players is that scooping in response to attacks etc to deny triggers is unsporting. A common solution that I hear is "scooping only at sorcery speed". Personally I don't strictly agree with this policy since I'd like to be able to scoop in the middle of someone's 30-minute combo turn, but spiritually I understand the goal. If you feel like you're screwed and want to quit, that's all good, but don't do it in a way that screws someone else.

But here's a different wrinkle that came up in a game yesterday - my opponent had a Hellkite Tyrant, and I was playing my Kaervek deck, with Kaervek recently dead and priced up to 11. I had a fair amount of mana in play, but most of it in artifacts. I think I only had 4-5 lands and only 1 or two cards in hand, with the rest of my permanents being artifacts (mana rocks and a swiftfoot boots).

Hitting me at this point with the hellkite would basically eliminate me from the game. It would take many, many turns to get enough mana to recast Kaervek, which is basically the deck's only plan. Until that point I'm pretty much sitting on my hands doing nothing. From that position, while I very rarely scoop, it's hard to imagine being relevant in that game at all.

EXCEPT insofar as my continued presence allows the other player to keep my artifacts. If I scoop, even if I wait until my own turn, I haven't technically countered his trigger, but I have rendered it useless nonetheless. But on the other hand, what's the alternative - I'm never allowed to leave the game, even if I have no chance of doing anything, in order to be a mana battery for another player?

And then corollary to that - in that situation, if you're looking at the hellkite and realizing that, if it attacks you, you'd probably scoop, is it bad to tell the attacker before attackers are declared (and what if that information causes them to decide to attack someone else, perhaps with less-juicy artifacts but who isn't going to scoop)? Or is it worse to not say anything, and potentially catch them unaware by depriving them of a bunch of permanents they expected to have?

Curious what y'all think about this. Would you feel it was BM for an opponent whose permanents you've stolen scooped, even if they were otherwise irrelevant to the game? If they planned to scoop, should they say something in advance or not?

[Jemolk]

That's actually a really interesting question. I'm honestly not sure what to think. So, there are a number of other obvious potential tiebreakers here. First, if you scoop, can you simply hop into another game? Second, how commanding a position is the player with the Tyrant in relative to the other players -- that is, how much would that player having all your artifacts change who is in the lead? Are they in "close out the game" mode, or still trying to grind advantage? Honestly, if I'm in "close out the game" mode, and can eliminate a player with a single Hellkite Tyrant attack, I'd consider that benefit enough. On the other hand, if I don't have any sort of decisive advantage, eliminating someone from the game is a major risk.

So, the hardest case is where you could hop into another pod and get another game in if you scoop, and also them having the artifacts is the thing that puts them over the edge to having a decisive advantage. However, in that case, I would think the decisive advantage should either snowball into a win relatively quickly, or get wrathed away, in which case they don't have your artifacts anymore and scooping doesn't deprive them of anything.

So, just from what's been said, I'd say generally don't scoop. Depends a lot on the precise situation, though.

[Treamayne]

I've always been of the mindset that scooping is always a bad thing. When you sit down to a game, you have committed to "playing a game of EDH" not "playing until I feel like quitting." So I don't scoop.

However, I realize I am a very small minority (possibly a minority of 1) and in your use case, as presented, and from the perspective of somebody that does not have a bias against breaking oaths - I would say you either concede before the trigger is targetted or not-at-all as long as the Tyrant player controls your permanents. After all, if you really had that many artifacts, they have to be close to the upkeep win trigger and while 4-5 lands is far away from recasting Kaervek (who is also against my EDH sensibilities, but that is another conversation), it's enough for Shatterstorm or similar.

[TheAmericanSpirit]

In general, I think players should be able to scoop as they please. It's a game, not a hostage scenario. That being said, the table should reserve the right to sort out the nuances resulting from said scooping, e.g. letting saboteur triggers resolve if a player scooped in response to a lethal attack, etc. There's less incentive for spite scooping if the table can functionally override an unsporting play.

I think scooping in the scenario you detailed was unnecessary and a bit counterproductive but ethically fine. If he was really gonna steal that much mana, he'd likely win shortly after either with the wincon effect or just snowballing a ton of mana into value. In terms of net output, your choice to concede probably only extended the time you had to wait between that game ending and the next beginning, but there may have been a compelling reason why that was useful too (getting food, using the restroom, etc.).

[pokken]

EXCEPT insofar as my continued presence allows the other player to keep my artifacts. If I scoop, even if I wait until my own turn, I haven't technically countered his trigger, but I have rendered it useless nonetheless. But on the other hand, what's the alternative - I'm never allowed to leave the game, even if I have no chance of doing anything, in order to be a mana battery for another player?

IMHO it'd be good sportsmanship to let them have their victory by crushing you. I would always stick around if someone has my stuff. Just F6 and play on my phone.

And then corollary to that - in that situation, if you're looking at the hellkite and realizing that, if it attacks you, you'd probably scoop, is it bad to tell the attacker before attackers are declared (and what if that information causes them to decide to attack someone else, perhaps with less-juicy artifacts but who isn't going to scoop)? Or is it worse to not say anything, and potentially catch them unaware by depriving them of a bunch of permanents they expected to have?

%$#% YES, I can't say this with enough capitals and exclamation points.

Any variant of the phrase

"If you do that, I will scoop"

is pure and unadulterated trash. Just scoop if you feel you must. Politics of the "I'm gonna scoop of you do that" variety are the literal worst.

[Dunadain]

These things are always nuanced, I'd like to just say "only scoop at sorcery speed" or some other platitude but, as you just demonstrated, that doesn't actually work, their are times when it's appropriate to scoop mid opponents-turn, and times when it is inappropriate to scoop at sorcery speed.

I remember once I was playing a game and someone playing Voltron was pressuring me to scoop because "I'm just going to kill you next turn." But I stayed in the game forcing him to waste another attack and ultimately losing him the game. I had no outs, and I stayed in the game purely to spite him. Is that reverse spite-scooping or was I not spite-scooping my other opponent? Is reverse spite-scooping a good or bad thing? Is reverse-spite scooping even a real thing or is Dunadain talking gibberish? Ultimately, it's kind of off-topic, but my point is in a multiplayer game where only one person can win, any action you take is going to go against some-or-all of your opponents interest, including scooping. Oftentimes, the winner of a game is determined by a player that has no chance of winning themselves.

That's what everyone signed up for when they decided to play a multiplayer game of magic. As long as you aren't blatantly denying you're opponent a sword trigger, then I wouldn't worry about it.

[BeneTleilax]

Personally, I think the politics are more interesting when theft effects are contingent on the other player surviving. There's an Ixhel deck in my meta that played like a big "get along" shirt, trying to keep everyone in the game until it got a critical mass of stuff and could take everyone out in one turn, and that's always fun to play. Theft effects are otherwise prone to durdling as people try to make use of other people's random linear pieces, and often a feel-bad, so the pressure to either fell swoop the table a la insurrection or keep the people you stole from engaged is generally beneficial.

Thankfully spite scooping (to deny triggers, or prior to attacks to essentially kingmake) has faded out in my group. These days the issue is mainly new players who realize they are dying doing random suicide attacks at the next weakest player just to feel they've "done something this game".

[DirkGently]

After all, if you really had that many artifacts, they have to be close to the upkeep win trigger

I believe I had 6 artifacts, which is a considerable distance away from 20, but it didn't matter anyway because the hellkite had been put into play via Purphoros, Bronze-Blooded.

I think scooping in the scenario you detailed was unnecessary and a bit counterproductive but ethically fine. If he was really gonna steal that much mana, he'd likely win shortly after either with the wincon effect or just snowballing a ton of mana into value. In terms of net output, your choice to concede probably only extended the time you had to wait between that game ending and the next beginning, but there may have been a compelling reason why that was useful too (getting food, using the restroom, etc.).

To clarify, I didn't get attacked and I didn't concede (nor would I have). The scenario is partially real, partially hypothetical.

I don't think my mana would have won him in the game. He ended up stealing a Panharmonicon and a couple mana rocks from another player instead.

Any variant of the phrase

"If you do that, I will scoop"

is pure and unadulterated trash. Just scoop if you feel you must. Politics of the "I'm gonna scoop of you do that" variety are the literal worst.

Interesting - personally I'd be way more annoyed if someone scooped after I hit them, than if they told me what to expect. I would be annoyed if someone with a pretty-reasonable-post-hellkite board position threatened to scoop, but if hellkite would actually remove them from the game I think it's a lot more understandable.

Since it seems like you're getting worked up, I'll clarify - I didn't threaten to scoop, I wouldn't have scooped, and I didn't ultimately get attacked. That part of the situation is hypothetical. Basically the only time I scoop is if someone is having a long tedious combo turn but it's clear to me that they are 100% to win.

I'd maaaaybe spite scoop if I thought someone was an actual scumbag, like deliberately pubstomping new players, but that situation has never come up so it's kinda hypothetical.

I remember once I was playing a game and someone playing Voltron was pressuring me to scoop because "I'm just going to kill you next turn." But I stayed in the game forcing him to waste another attack and ultimately losing him the game. I had no outs, and I stayed in the game purely to spite him. Is that reverse spite-scooping or was I not spite-scooping my other opponent? Is reverse spite-scooping a good or bad thing? Is reverse-spite scooping even a real thing or is Dunadain talking gibberish?

That's an insane thing for your opponent to do imo. Otherwise you literally win the game with a 21-power unblockable voltron, by going "hey, I'm going to kill you, so you should just scoop" from one player to another until there's only one left. I have had opponents who scoop because they know they're the recipient of the next attack, thus sending that attack into me instead, and it pisses me off mightily. If someone does that to my own attack, I go "alright, well I'm still attacking their ghost" to give the other players a fair shake.

These days the issue is mainly new players who realize they are dying doing random suicide attacks at the next weakest player just to feel they've "done something this game".

[duducrash]

When yo sit up to play a game there is an expectation of having fun and understanding your friends will have some fun too, some time to your "detriment" and yo will suck it up. That being said, it's a game. you have limited time with the whole life thing. Do your best, if its too much, pleae do scoop it up

[pokken]

Interesting - personally I'd be way more annoyed if someone scooped after I hit them, than if they told me what to expect. I would be annoyed if someone with a pretty-reasonable-post-hellkite board position threatened to scoop, but if hellkite would actually remove them from the game I think it's a lot more understandable.

Since it seems like you're getting worked up, I'll clarify - I didn't threaten to scoop, I wouldn't have scooped, and I didn't ultimately get attacked. That part of the situation is hypothetical. Basically the only time I scoop is if someone is having a long tedious combo turn but it's clear to me that they are 100% to win.

What I'm tellin you is any time you say "if you do that, I scoop" it reads like "I am a whiny baby and will pick up my toys if things aren't going my way" OR "I'm trying to get some kinda advantage by threatening a non-game action" -- both scumbag behavior. And everyone will always interpret one of those two approaches.

Scooping in a way that hoses someone is *also* bad behavior. But using the threat to get an advantage is far worse. And in your mind that may not be what it is, and you might interpret it differently from others. But you've got to accept that you're an atypical player with an atypical grasp of game theory

I can say this with some experience because I have in the past justified my own use of that - basically, ~"I am out of the game if you do this so I'll scoop" -- and I read the room, saw how it was received, and gave up that behavior. I know it can come from a good place but it *almost never* is received that way.

NOTE: The "you" in the above is the impersonal you except the bolded part.

Generally I feel about scooping like you, I just scoop when the game is absolutely over and sitting there playing it out is tedious, or if I sense myself getting too salty to continue -- and I try hard to check and make sure it's not hosing someone.

[DirkGently]

Scooping in a way that hoses someone is *also* bad behavior. But using the threat to get an advantage is far worse. And in your mind that may not be what it is, and you might interpret it differently from others. But you've got to accept that you're an atypical player with an atypical grasp of game theory

I don't think it really has anything to do with game theory. I think game theorists are happy to consider these sorts of things. It's more about what's considered good manners.

I don't think it's really possible to concede without effecting the game in some way, which will be positive for some players and potentially negative for others - or at least, less positive. Like in Dunadain's example, removing yourself means that the next target will get attacked instead, or maybe you have a stax piece in play that is holding someone at bay, etc. I know that when I'm considering the game, I'm usually trying to form a plan that incorporates all the players, so someone scooping will typically throw that plan off in some way or another. It drives me nuts when I'm trying to mount a defense against an archenemy and one of my allies says "whelp, the archenemy player is too strong, I concede."

One solution to the original question that I'm surprised no one has mentioned, though it is certainly illegal in a technical sense, would be replacing the artifacts with duplicate tokens. That way the effected player isn't forced to sit through a game they aren't participating in, but the hellkite player isn't deprived of their advantage. I personally wouldn't like this solution since it creates a situation that otherwise would be impossible - i.e., the other opponents can't remove the artifacts by killing the artifacts owner - but it doesn't seem completely beyond the pale.

[pokken]

I don't think it really has anything to do with game theory. I think game theorists are happy to consider these sorts of things. It's more about what's considered good manners.

What I mean is that, your typical player will not get to the level of game theory analysis where they're like "I want all the information I can to make an informed decision about winning the game."

They stay at the emotional layer of "so and so threatened to quit so I wouldn't attack them" instead of viewing it through the game theory lens of "I have reduced their chance to win to 0 by doing this thing, so they have no reason to play."

It's about perspective. The most important thing to remember about casual commander is: Most people are not playing to win, they're playing their cards.

[Treamayne]

Most people are not playing to win, they're playing their cards

And playing to spend time with friends.

[materpillar]

Curious what y'all think about this. Would you feel it was BM for an opponent whose permanents you've stolen scooped, even if they were otherwise irrelevant to the game? If they planned to scoop, should they say something in advance or not?

I've actually had an extremely similar situation come up a good bit, that I believe is actually an even better example. In my Changeling Deck I used to run Gilt-Leaf Archdruid, primarily as a draw engine but secondarily as an alt wincondition. I put the tap 7: druids ability on the stack multiple times and I don't believe I ever actually gained control of a single land. I actually started viewing the second ability as Door to Nothingness because it always resulted in a concession.

Is it BM to scoop to Gilt-Leaf Archdruid trigger? Most of my opponents thought not. I tend to agree that it wasn't particularly BM. Kind of annoying because I think Gilt-Leaf Archdruid is a cool card that I'd like to run but if you almost completely cripple someone, you should expect them to leave the game.

[pokken]

Hard disagree there mp. If you play against a deck knowing the gilt leaf is in there and you scoop in response you're making the card worse instead of just having a real convo like, don't play that card dude. We hate it.

[Dunadain]

Hard disagree there mp. If you play against a deck knowing the gilt leaf is in there and you scoop in response you're making the card worse instead of just having a real convo like, don't play that card dude. We hate it.

I'm not sure anybody hates the card in the above scenario, it just beats them.

No different from scooping to someone casting Overrun or some other game-winning spell.

[ISBPathfinder]

You should never assume that mass thefting someone's board will give them reason to continue playing. Accept that hitting a player with hellkite is a player removal and them scooping isn't griefing you. When you shove someone in a box by utilizing theft I think its fair if they throw in the towel. I don't even think its a problem if you wait until your following turn to scoop in that situation to remove the "sorcery speed concede issue". I also don't think its a problem to en mass concede a game where someone has something not quite infinite but will ultimately kill everyone.

The one theft thing that is probably griefing ot concede to would be some sort of combat theft like Insurrection where the point is to do combat first. Most of this though is solved by again defaulting to scooping at sorcery speed.

When it comes to the 30 min turn I think there is an argument that after a point you can ask does anyone have something to live through this and just en mass recognize them as the winner.

[materpillar]

Hard disagree there mp. If you play against a deck knowing the gilt leaf is in there and you scoop in response you're making the card worse instead of just having a real convo like, don't play that card dude. We hate it.

I don't know that anyone disliked playing against the card. Tapping 7 druids is super telegraphed and the card was extremely on theme for the deck so most people weren't salty that I used it. They were just dead so they tapped out which happened to also make the card worse. It always resulted in scooping but it wasn't "spite" scooping per say.

[illakunsaa]

I really don't care what your stance on spite scooping is but everybody does it. Even the ones who say that they don't. The only difference between people who openly spite spite scoop and "scoop only as a sorcery" crowd is that spite scoopers are honest about it.

[brainface]

I feel like if you reduce an opponent to simply existing in the game to provide you resources beyond like, a single turn, you should expect them to scoop. Nobody wants to exist in the game solely to be a gilded lotus for someone else. You shouldn't spitefully scoop, sure, but you also should respect other peoples' time.

And I think people should take this into account in deckbuilding, any time you add some sort of resource stealing lock (and gilt-leaf is a good example!), you shouldn't expect to reliably keep those resources for long.

[Ruiner]

For me, and my playgroup, the only times that it is acceptable to scoop are basically:

1 - The table sees that Player A essentially has the game in the bag and we are just going through the motions of resolving that inevitable victory. We do the usual "Can anyone deal with this?" quick conversation, and if no one indicates they can we shuffle up a new game. This extends to when the game drops down to 1 vs 1 as well ("I've got nothing, you win this one.").

2 - You have to leave for whatever reason.

We are hanging out to play games, if someone scoops and then just sits there as the rest of us keep playing, that's weird. Be a good sport, accept that you probably are losing but see it through to the end (and in a multiplayer format unexpected shifts can occur). Our attitude is generally, if you know a deck at the table steals resources or does some other strategy you have trouble with, and you don't want it to happen to you for some reason, kill that player first then or get your Homeward Path (or equivalent for whatever the strategy is) ready.

We don't see Theft, or Mill, or other seemingly unpopular strategies as some weird "lesser" strategy that you constantly have to worry about people scooping as a response to. If things seem hopeless, the game probably is nearly over anyway.

It is rare that we aren't playing at someone's house, but even back when we played more in local shops with potentially random new people, this was generally the prevailing attitude and went along with good sportsmanship. I get that if you don't have a regular group (maybe you only play on a LGS that is constantly in flux) and you always deal with strangers this might change things a bit, but even so I'd just see it through barring extraordinary circumstances.

I see online people say things like the equivalent of "I can scoop anytime I want! No one can hold me hostage in a game I don't want to be in!", and while that's true it comes across as overly dramatic and a bit silly, at least to my regular group.

[Treamayne]

I really don't care what your stance on spite scooping is but everybody does it. Even the ones who say that they don't. The only difference between people who openly spite spite scoop and "scoop only as a sorcery" crowd is that spite scoopers are honest about it.

No, not everybody does it. I have stayed out of spite*, but I have not conceded (spite or not).

*Note: On MTGO, there are no shortcuts - so, for example, if your loop takes four game actions to generale +1 surplus mana and that loop would be "infinite mana" in paper but you need to generate 50+ mana to win - then you have to click through 200 actions to get there. I have no problem letting people run out of time trying to generate "inf mana" (or whatever inf combo they have) if they are running something because they just expect people to concede.

[pokken]

Alright. Here's some incentive for those of you who will scoop when it denies an opponent resources:

1. You scooping makes the game take longer. Because they don't have your stuff.

2. Homeward path type cards exist. Usually worth waiting a minute and seeing if someone can find one.

[Dunadain]

You scooping makes the game take longer. Because they don't have your stuff.

You don't know that, the person who stole your stuff might be in second place, and the stuff he stole evens the odds, allowing the game to drag on,

More importantly though, I could be doing other things besides watching a game I have no chance in.

2. Homeward path type cards exist. Usually worth waiting a minute and seeing if someone can find one.

If by "Homeward Path type cards" you mean literally just Homeward Path, then yes, I suppose that's true... But, someone has to be playing it, they have to find it, and they need to decide they want you to have your stuff back. Which are three long shots in a row.

Edit: Also, Homeward Path doesn't even work in both of the examples in this thread because it only works on creatures.

[DirkGently]

Most people are not playing to win, they're playing their cards

And playing to spend time with friends.

I think the word "to" creates excessive ambiguity in this context.

The objective of the game is to win. The purpose of the game is to enjoy spending time with friends. Both things can be true simultaneously. I can spend time with friends doing anything - I prefer to do it by playing magic, because some friendly competition in the context of a game is fun.

As far as pokken, virtually everyone is playing to win on some level. It's just that most commander players aren't very good and/or don't take it as seriously.

Alright. Here's some incentive for those of you who will scoop when it denies an opponent resources:

This case is less about scooping specifically with intent to deny resources, so much as inadvertently denying resources because you don't want to continue to play a game where you will have no chance to win.