>>56291030From my experience as "that one asshole" who always go for the slow, clunky alternative win-con in games, I mainly get three arguments thrown at me
First : it's time wasting.
I can empathize, in a more friendly, casual setting you should take into consideration your and your opponent's finite time on this earth.
Don't bring your win-con less stax pile to EDH night and don't stall 10 minutes with ledge-immunity in couch-play unless your friends are into it or you wanna get slapped and deserve it.
If we're in a ladder, a single round elimination or w/e other competitive setting, tough luck, if the game we're playing allow me to slow-roll your ass and for that gut-punch to be the optimal play, you don't hate me, you hate the game, find a new one.
Second is : it's match-up fishing.
Just in this thread there are multiple anons complaining that you need one or more dedicated stall-breaker or it's a turn one loss for you.
I have more mixed feelings on that one, I'd argue it depends on the meta and is a matter of balance.
You could use the same exact argument to clown on HO, "oh, you don't have a counter-lead that beats my suicide hazard setters, two unaware mons that align well against my three set-up sweepers and strong resists/immunities to my choice-mons? gg on team preview anon".
I'd argue most if not all teams (including solidly built, well-rounded ones) are somewhat fishing for some match-ups and fearing of others but for some reason people get scarred more deeply by that one pex they couldn't break than that one regieleki that swept them because they didn't pack a ground type.
If I had to guess, it's because they'd rather play 40 minutes against the pex, betting on the infinitesimal chance they get four crits in a row, than forfeit and play another game.
