Please login to comment

cdkime you can easily address that by making it so that no individual player can concede in multiplayer. For conceding to have the effect it has in 1vs1 (one person wins and the rest loses) all players except one would have to concede. with a round time limit and one win needed per round there's no reason though to end the game by conceding before someone really presents a winning move.

April 23, 2019 9:28 a.m.

shadow63 the correct way to play a loop is to demonstrate one iteration and - if there were no responses during that first sequemnce - ask the table to shortcut to a point in the game after X more iterations of that loop. Opponents will have to say if they want to respond to anything within a shorter number of repetitions, otherwise the game continues after the number of repetitions you said you want to go through. There's no need to announce a combo before a winning loop has been shown because you would just give away information that the opponents might not have. For example if they don't see that it's a loop that can be repeated as often as you want...you wouldn't want to tell everyone "here comes my combo" before the point where you propose a shortcut.

April 23, 2019 9:01 a.m.

I think it's not correct to look at conceding in multiplayer from the perspective of what the reasons for not wanting to play out a game might be. Imo there are two aspects of why a single player conceding in multiplayer shouldn't ever be done:

  • Conceding is never strategically correct apart from a best of 3 match with time limit.

You don't gain anything by conceding a multiplayer match, you just lose. If you stop someone else from winning by losing at the "right" time, you still lose. It's never a correct decision to lose on purpose and at worst it can be illegal teamplay and collusion. Therefore I'm very much for simply not allowing it at all in a tournament setting.

  • Conceding of a single player will always ruin the rest of the game.

Everyone bases their decisions on the known information and a player suddenly leaving with all his permanents for no logical reason will result in utter randomness. Imagine stax pieces suddenly disappearing, potential interaction from another opponent not happening for sure, maybe even permanents switching controllers for no reason...if that leaving player had any presence in the game at all it will ruin the game for the remaining players. And even if he was not doing much, another opponent to consider will often have a slowing effect on the currently dominant player.

April 23, 2019 7:18 a.m.

Azire have you seen BadDogs Kaalia deck? It can definitely keep up with the top of the format at a table...if you don't think she can be a lot better than Daxos, maybe you just play her weaker?

April 10, 2019 6:10 a.m.

Decks

Najeela's Hulk Pod Project (cEDH Primer)

Commander / EDH Winterblast

SCORE: 156 | 131 COMMENTS | 28037 VIEWS | IN 68 FOLDERS

Sisay's Eldrazi Paradoxon

Commander / EDH Winterblast

SCORE: 2 | 416 VIEWS | IN 2 FOLDERS

Brain Fart Stax

Commander / EDH Winterblast

SCORE: 30 | 25 COMMENTS | 2921 VIEWS | IN 15 FOLDERS

Master the Infinite!

Commander / EDH Winterblast

SCORE: 3 | 3 COMMENTS | 629 VIEWS | IN 1 FOLDER

Augustin's $t4ks (cEDH Primer)

Commander / EDH Winterblast

SCORE: 151 | 186 COMMENTS | 25481 VIEWS | IN 54 FOLDERS

Finished Decks 47
Prototype Decks 30
Drafts 0
Playing since Classic Sixth Edition
Points 350
Avg. deck rating 21.48
T/O Rank 286
Helper Rank 439
Favorite formats Legacy, Commander / EDH
Good Card Suggestions 414
Last activity 2 days
Joined 2 years