Which is a fair way to lose in my book. Mental / Physical durability play a big role in doing well in big tournaments.Originally Posted by Skeggi
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!).
No argument there
If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it's probably delicious.
Team ADHD-To resist is to piss in the wind. Anyone who does will end up smelling.
@honestabe
"This guy" has won the 2011 LCV (one of the oldest Vintage leagues in the World with more than 7 years history) after 12 tournaments during the year (for the second time in 4 years).
Apart from winning the Final tournament of the top32 best players of the largest Monthly Legacy league in the World (with a regular attendance of more than 100 people).
Apart from being among the best and more respected Eternal players in Spain.
It seems he deserves more credit than that.
Nope. He won.The guy with the Jace didn't know the rules and lost.
And the discussion is not about this but wether the short-cut non short-cut issue is intentional missleading or not.
The mistake is that wizards allows a shortcut like this to happen. Targeting a planeswalker is an illegal play and should be corrected on the spot.
In this scenario, you can't really penalize the guy for abusing the shortcut. But I also feel you can't really put all the ''blame'' on the guy who let the Bolt resolve. It's a really thin line. That's why I feel Wizards is the one in error, by not stating clear rules regarding redirecting damage to planeswalkers. I think this example proves why the shortcut isn't acceptable, you should always target the player first.
I believe competitive Magic (which is a great game for breaking language barriers) should be protected from things like this happening. It should be clear what's going on at all times.
This goes beyond a jedi mindtrick. Let's imagine the guy is completely clear in his gameplay. Let's imagine the conversation at the table:
''I'm going to tap mana to cast a Lightning Bolt. As you can see I'm targeting Jace, but what I really mean is redirecting the damage from you to him. I'm using a shortcut to make gameplay easier.''
''Alright, fair enough. It resolves.''
''Now I'm going to tap mana to cast another Lightning Bolt, this time I'm targeting you.''
''Alright, resolves. Let me just write that down...''
''Let me stop you right there, I'll choose to redirect the damage to Jace. I suddenly decided it's worth going through the extra trouble of first targeting the player.''
''Wait what? Alright, then I'll cast Force of Will pitching this blue card to counter it.
''But you already let it resolve...''
''So now you're just using shortcuts whenever you feel like it? I really think you should have pointed out that you're not using the shortcut anymore.''
''Your Jace is dead, buddy.''
''I'm not your buddy, friend.''
''I'm not you friend, guy.''
''I'm not your guy, buddy.''
This conversation would never end.
So even if the player abusing the shortcut was very clear in what he was doing, it would still be very easy to just fall for it. I think this problem can only be fixed by having more clear rules regarding this.
There are "clear rules about this" - targeting a planeswalker is a shortcut defined in the rules, in fact.
• A player who chooses a planeswalker as the target of a spell or ability that would deal damage is assumed to be targeting the planeswalker’s controller and redirecting the damage on resolution. The player must adhere to that choice unless an opponent responds.
Shortcuts are a good thing. As the rules say, "Tournament shortcuts are essential for the smooth play of a game, as they allow players to play in a clear fashion without getting bogged down in the minutia of the rules."
What people are objecting to is changing shortcuts without warning - which is definitely not legal - or using a shortcut and then stopping, which is in theory legal.
“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
Honestly I blame the card type Planeswalker and the rules surrounding them for shenanigans of this order to exist at all. The fact that they sort of act as singularities in the rulebook, bending rules around them so that they work as they should, is real dumb.
It's like how they removed the (walls can't attack) garbage from the Comp Rules, because they didn't want there to be any implicit rules surrounding a creature type. But now we have Planeswalkers, which don't entirely jive with most of the "target creature or player" rules in the game, so they have to work in goofy ways.
Imagine a different outcome of that first play:
Player A - "Bolt your Jace."
Player B - "In response, Healing Salve, targeting me. Any responses? *Player A says no* I'll prevent the next 3 damage dealt to me, and apply the replacement effects so that the damage dealt to me by the Lightning Bolt you actually targeted me with but apparently wish to redirect to Jace is negated before it can be redirected."
Waaay dumber than "It's a Wall. It just can't attack."
I just can't wait for them to start printing burn spells that target "target creature, player or planeswalker" or even better, "target permanent", so this stops being an issue and Lightning Bolt gets power crept out of the game and Burn.dec hits critical mass and ruins the world for generations to come. Ok the last bit will probably never happen, but probably the first. And it's because of shitty rules like this, and Wizards' tendency to creep ever closer towards an "Explicit > Implicit" Magic.
Actually they did it right at the first go:
I totally agree, the rulings to make Planeswalkers "work" are counterintuitive. They just bent them in a cetain way that they didn't have to errata every direct damage spell printed. While I love Planeswalkers and the extra aspect they bring to the game, I just wish they chose to go for the errata's instead of this awkward rule.
It's funny how Wizards basically admits how counterintuitive the redirection of damage to Planeswalkers is by allowing the shortcut.
If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it's probably delicious.
Team ADHD-To resist is to piss in the wind. Anyone who does will end up smelling.
By my understanding Lightning Bolt has to resolve before it is redirected to Jace, and cannot legally target Jace.
If I say 'on your endstep Lightning Bolt you' and you say 'Okay' or 'Jace or I?', that is passing priority and letting the spell resolve, thus be redirected to Jace without another chance to counter it.
Please correct me if I am misunderstanding something
By 'targeting' Jace, you are saying "I'm targeting you, and if you don't respond, I am redirecting the damage to Jace".
Yes, "okay" or such is passing priority to let the spell resolve.If I say 'on your endstep Lightning Bolt you' and you say 'Okay' or 'Jace or I?', that is passing priority and letting the spell resolve, thus be redirected to Jace without another chance to counter it.
It does depend on how that is to be interpreted; "you" could be interpreted as "target you and deal damage to you", especially if previous shortcuts are involved. "Target you" is unambiguous, "you" is not. If your opponent misinterprets an ambiguous shortcut, the game gets backed up to the point of misunderstanding.
“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
Related question. Can I cast a Cabal Therapy, Pithing Needle, or Meddling Mage naming an irrelevant card, and ask my opponent "does it resolve"? If it does resolve, can I actually change the card I name, or am I obligated to use the card I initially renamed when I should have been choosing a target player without specifying a card?
If you declare something about a spell on announcement that's actually part of resolution, you are bound to your choice - unless your opponent responds. If your opponent responds, you can change.
“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
Thanks for the explanation.
This is a part of the twitter conversation I had with Matt Tabak regarding this topic:
If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it's probably delicious.
Team ADHD-To resist is to piss in the wind. Anyone who does will end up smelling.
So one judge says cheating? How come cdr then comes to the conclusion of a backup? Didn't he just say that there's no penalty for deviating from a shortcut?
Sorry if I missed something, but I would be really shocked if - after all - two competent judges came to two vastly different resolutions of this problem.
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!).
In all fairness, Matt Tabak isn't a judge anymore, but now the Rules Manager for Wizards, he used to be a level 3 though I think. This is how the conversation ended:
My last question isn't really relevant to the original point and Matt hasn't replied to it. I guess that's the thing with all the rulings: they're subject to the interpretation of the judge, some rules are just more clear in general than others I guess.
The important thing I get from this, is that the Rules Manager of Wizards says that this behavior is punishable if the judge wishes to do so, and he points at two rules the judge can use as argumentation.
If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it's probably delicious.
Team ADHD-To resist is to piss in the wind. Anyone who does will end up smelling.
It happens more than you might think, at least with less well defined things. Skeggi stumbled upon something of an edge case. Most things are well defined.
It comes down to whether you consider ceasing to use a shortcut "deviating from a shortcut" - I'm not sure it should be, but it's possible I'm on the wrong side of policy.
(I should note that Tabak is not currently a judge, though he was before and is a smart guy - he's the rules manager, dealing primarily with game rules)
“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
Matt replied to my final question:
With this in mind, there are always bordercases like this where judges might interpret the rules differently. Just keep in mind you might get a judge who thinks it is cheating and he does have the necessary rules to back up his claim. So if someone does this to me in a tournament I'll definately call for a judge.
If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it's probably delicious.
Team ADHD-To resist is to piss in the wind. Anyone who does will end up smelling.
Getting a bit off-topic, but I want to confirm the following:
Opponent has Flooded Strand and Polluted Delta in play, you cast Pithing Needle and immediately name "Flooded Strand" without giving your opponent an opportunity to respond. Your opponent says "wait, in response, I'll crack Flooded Strand". Because they responded, you are now free to name "Polluted Delta" upon resolution. Is this accurate?
That's probably not a very relevant example, but a similar situation where you say "Sensei's Divining Top", your opponent taps down their Wasteland to look in response, then switches their Top, then Fetches it away (all in response to Needle), could ruffle some feathers when you officially name "Wasteland" upon resolution. This is considered a legal 'mind trick', correct?
Thanks in advance
Good that it was ruled this way. A did not use a Shortcut when he targeted B and B had absolutely no reason to assume that A did. B can take a gamble and hope that A accidently gave away to much information to safe his Force of Will but if B wants Jace to live then he has to just play it safe.
B was either unaware of the rules (that he can't counter once the PW is targeted) or he tried to be abusive and failed. Either way, this is 100% B's own mistake and he is the only one to blame.
Yes, this is true as far as I know.
Other relevant Legacy examples would be using Cabal Therapy or Meddling Mage in the same way.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
