A couple questions:
1) What happens if an opponent casts brainstorms and begins drawing before giving you a chance to respond (when you did in fact have a response, like a Pyroblast).
2) What happens if an opponent has something like a Wild Mongrel in play, attacks, then says he discards his hand to make him larger before damage, but once again you have a response (say, swords to plowshares). If somebody says something like they discard their hand, is it assumed that all of those activations just go on the stack at the same time, then the opponent has the chance to respond?
Just a couple situations I was curious about. Thanks!
Something similar happened to me during GP Columbus. My opponent cracked a fetch and immediately picked up his deck and started searching. I told him to stop because I wanted to respond (I was holding Stifle). I decided the best approach was to call a judge because I didn't know if my opponent's supposed to reshuffle or not in this situation. He got a warning and was told to re-shuffle and we played on. Side note: he ALMOST did it again, making me feel less like a jerk for getting him a warning. This is something everyone should learn even if it has to be the hard way.
It depends on the exact circumstances, but most likely, a judge would "back up" the game (=undo any illegal action = return drawn cards to the library). I also expect this player to receive a warning for a game rule violation.Originally Posted by Valtrix
Again, I assume nothing fishy is going on. If you opponent did not explain himself he is using the common shortcuts, as stated in the tournament rules 4.2.
In this example nothing illegal is going on. If you wish to respond to his first (or second or third or last) activation you tell him so (at best without revealing your sword to plowshares). He will take all but one (but two, but three, but no) card back in his hand and you get priority to cast your sword. If you call a judge in this situation, the judge will kindly explain the rules I just happen to wrote to both of you, without issuing any penalty.Whenever a player adds an object to the stack, he or she is assumed to be passing priority unless he or she explicitly announces that he or she intends to retain it. If he or she adds a group of objects to the stack without explicitly retaining priority and a player wishes to take an action at a point in the middle, the actions should be reversed up to that point.
Exactly the same happens if you remove two jitte counter at once or pump BBBB into a nantuko shade.
Quoted for truth! When in doubt: Call a judge!
No no, not looking for any penalties. I was just curious if it was as simple as backing up the action for brainstorm, and I didn't know if there was a rule for the type of shortcutted Mongrel action. Now, if they shortcut all of them, they're committed to it, correct? So if an opponent says he discards his hand, but you say that you have a response he can't later choose to not discard his hand now that he knows you have a response to one of the activations (until you respond at least), correct? Would he have to give you a chance to respond between each activation up to all the activations he shortcutted for?
I believe I was not clear enough oin the mongrel example.
If a player adds multiple objects to the stack at once (such as discarding his entire hand to a wild mongrel, removing all jitte counter at onceor spending BBBB for a nantuko shade) it is assumed he uses a shortcut for activating the ability once, then passing priority and letting it resolve, then activating it again. If a player wants to respond to the first activation, the game will be backed up. All but the first activation are undone. He gets cards back in his hand, counter back on his jitte or mana back in his pool.
That is if a player does not say a word.
He could say that he wishes to add all activations to the stack at once, so you might respond to all of them. (Usually a dumb decision, but maybe he has a jitte with multiple counters and fears Krosan Grip?)
The best thing you can do in the mongrel example, is to ask your opponent if the activations are in response to each other. If he says no, back-up the game to where you want to respond (as stated, cards go back in hand, etc.). If he says yes, you can cast StP before the activations resolve, mongrel won't get pumped, and all the cards that were discarded remain in the grave.
He is not committed to anything beyond the point the game is backed up to (ie, the point at which you wish to respond).
Even if he takes your bait and says yes, they were in response to each other, if he calls a judge after you blindside him the judge is going to let him back it up - the first time it happens, anyway. Policy does not allow you to bait your opponents with MTR shortcuts.
If he is very clear about the activations being in response to each other, without promting from you, that's a different matter.
Last edited by cdr; 08-26-2010 at 06:07 PM.
“It's possible. But it involves... {checks archives} Nature's Revolt, Opalescence, two Unstable Shapeshifters (one of which started as a Doppelganger), a Tide, an animated land, a creature with Fading, a Silver Wyvern, some way to get a creature into play in response to stuff, some way to get a land into play in response to stuff (a different land from the animated land), and one heck of a Rube Goldberg timing diagram.”
-David DeLaney
I think the real answer might be, it depends on the REL. I doubt a player at a Pro REL would be able to get away with that, but I could be wrong. "Taking it back" could be fairly complicated if Madness was involved or a very complicated game state. I don't think they'd let you throw down your hand yell, "Pump for the win," Then seeing your opponents response, pick your hand back up and "clarify" which cards were in what order (meaning which one's will stay in your hand). At certain levels I think that might be a "Valuable life lesson."
big links in sigs are obnoxious -PR
Don't disrespect my dojo dude...
Sweep the leg!
No. It has absolutely nothing to do with REL.
As was already said, adding a batch of objects to the stack is a defined shortcut in the MTR - if the opponent wants to respond at a particular point, the actions are reveresed, period.
“It's possible. But it involves... {checks archives} Nature's Revolt, Opalescence, two Unstable Shapeshifters (one of which started as a Doppelganger), a Tide, an animated land, a creature with Fading, a Silver Wyvern, some way to get a creature into play in response to stuff, some way to get a land into play in response to stuff (a different land from the animated land), and one heck of a Rube Goldberg timing diagram.”
-David DeLaney
So the lesson one could draw from cdr explanation is that the rules favour sloopy play because you will be allowed a tackback if you fail to correctily state what you are about to do. Sad.
/edit: I even remember several circumstances of PT broadcasted where Pro's tried to take advantage of this kind of ruling.
The seven cardinal sins of Legacy:
1. Discuss the unbanning ofLand TaxEarthcraft.
2. Argue that banning Force of Will would make the format healthier.
3. Play Brainstorm without Fetchlands.
4. Stifle Standstill.
5. Think that Gaea's Blessing will make you Solidarity-proof.
6. Pass priority after playing Infernal Tutor.
7. Fail to playtest against Nourishing Lich (coZ iT wIlL gEt U!).
Quite the opposite. The rules favor clear play - judges do not allow you take advantage of ambiguous play.
Last edited by cdr; 08-26-2010 at 02:24 PM.
“It's possible. But it involves... {checks archives} Nature's Revolt, Opalescence, two Unstable Shapeshifters (one of which started as a Doppelganger), a Tide, an animated land, a creature with Fading, a Silver Wyvern, some way to get a creature into play in response to stuff, some way to get a land into play in response to stuff (a different land from the animated land), and one heck of a Rube Goldberg timing diagram.”
-David DeLaney
I was kind of exaggerating there. Still my point remains: if there's no judge present I will have a very hard time proving my opponent was actually trying to take advantage. If I fail he will be granted a take-back now knowing that I'm holding StP. Advantage opponent! I know that in rather small events it will be much easier to tell if a seasoned player is actually just faking not knowing what he's doing. But almost nothing you can do about it once the judge doesn't personally know the player.
The seven cardinal sins of Legacy:
1. Discuss the unbanning ofLand TaxEarthcraft.
2. Argue that banning Force of Will would make the format healthier.
3. Play Brainstorm without Fetchlands.
4. Stifle Standstill.
5. Think that Gaea's Blessing will make you Solidarity-proof.
6. Pass priority after playing Infernal Tutor.
7. Fail to playtest against Nourishing Lich (coZ iT wIlL gEt U!).
Using shortcuts to fish for information is Fraud and will result in disqualification. You might not get caught every time, but people who do it will keep doing it and will get caught eventually. If you think your opponent is commiting Fraud (and you have a good reason to think so), take the judge aside and tell him your concern.
I'm not seeing where any advantage is really being gained anyway.
“It's possible. But it involves... {checks archives} Nature's Revolt, Opalescence, two Unstable Shapeshifters (one of which started as a Doppelganger), a Tide, an animated land, a creature with Fading, a Silver Wyvern, some way to get a creature into play in response to stuff, some way to get a land into play in response to stuff (a different land from the animated land), and one heck of a Rube Goldberg timing diagram.”
-David DeLaney
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Reply With Quote