David illegally brainstorms for 1 with a thalia in play
judge is called and the ruling is he shuffles his hand and puts 3 cards back ontop of his library at random....
HJ later explains you are allowed to cheat without getting penalized as long as its after a game rule violation (illegally cast BS, GRV takes effect over the more serious illegally drawing 3 cards)
Looks insanely bad on SCG for allowing such garbage calls and on having one of their buyers be a total douche and not scooping to her and going to G3.
That game was terribad. Twitter is raging. What makes it worse is David tried to Submerge Giovanna's stuff like three separate times. He missed 1)that she had no forest in play and 2) that the thing he was trying to Submerge had Pro:Blue.
So bad!
I dunno if she would have won if that Brainstorm never happened, but it definitely was a "feel bad" ruling by the judge. David was sitting on zero lands and none in his grip if that Brainstorm didn't go off.
A very awkward situation.
Yeah. Turns out Brainstorm is really good. But when it's illegal, its becomes godmode.
Agreed. That game was super awkward. I don't know why he just didn't scoop to her. Karma will catch you brah.
^McDarby lost in the quarters.
Joey Andrews doesn't really look like he's skilled enough to make it to the finals of a tournament to be perfectly honest. This feels a lot like "I got here because this deck is good" and not much to do with him, every game so far I've seen really, really awful decisions by him. And like, nerves are one thing, but I'm baffled that someone who is almost incapable of holding their own cards (at one point he couldn't shuffle his own cards from how badly he was shaking) could make it to the finals.
But on topic, I'm baffled by that judge call. That's absolute horse-shit considering that Giovanna was going to wreck him had that not happened. It almost looked intentional honestly.
What that really said to me was "Well look, if you cheat and act like it was a mistake, it's cool, because Brainstorm will let you draw 3 cards, then randomly put 3 on top of your library, AND COST NO MANA OR CARDS".
Am I wrong about that? I can't remember but didn't they let him draw the three, then put three back, then let him untap the land and keep the brainstorm?
Like how apeshit onesided benefit is that?? If you watched the brainstorm, he wasn't hitting another land for a long time, the play for her was to force the kill on thalia so she could drop an uncontested sylvan library and take over that game. She -easily- had that game.
She got robbed.
As I said on twitter. "Love seeing women in magic. Hate seeing bitches."
westcoast degeneracy
To the guys who disagree with the judge call, in your opinion what would have been the right call?
I wasn't watching, but AFAIK the correct calls were made per the IPG. The ruling was 100% by the book.
1) The MTR prohibits judges from using video in rulings, supposedly because of time concerns. Putting 3 back at random was the correct remedy. If you don't like that, complain to the people who make the rules.
2) There was no cheating. If there was, there would have been a DQ. If you can cheat and fool multiple level 2-3 judges, good for you I guess.
3) You do not get Drawing Extra Cards/Game Loss for improperly casting a spell. The reasoning is that there is generally enough time for an opponent to notice an improperly cast spell that it is excluded from the more severe penalty.
“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 was no "ruling" involved, improperly playing a spell is a GRV and therefore cannot ever lead to DEC per the IPG.
I hadn't seen/heard anything about Submerges, but yes, a third or subsequent Game Play Error warning - for anything - on the day should be upgraded to Game Loss. Players are bad about calling opponents on errors, though, and even judges can be lax when they're watching a table.
“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
This is the problem. He tapped the land, played out brainstorm and drew the cards right after the brainstorm hit the table. Giovanna didn't reasonably have time to respond (imo).
You can watch the replay on http://www.twitch.tv/scglive. It's round 6, game 2 of legacy.
Again, I was speaking to the philosophy of the definition of the infraction. We have a separate Drawing Extra Cards infraction because the potential for abuse is higher and it's more difficult to catch. At the same time, we don't want to be overly harsh on common errors (the IPG has evolved consistently towards being less punitive). We don't put card draws resulting from game rule violations or player communication violations under Drawing Extra Cards because they are in general both easier to catch and have less potential for abuse.
“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
@cdr: The above point is very true. He sets the Brainstorm on the table then a second later the first card from the Brainstorm is in his hand. How the is onus of this supposed to be on Giovanna, or any player in that same situation? As much as it is every player's job to maintain the board state, a player also has to be able to play the game and make plans accordingly, which one can not do if their every thought is directed at making sure their opponent doesn't "forget" about some effect like Thalia. I'm not saying David cheated, but it is up to all players to maintain the game state. If that is the end result, there is no reason for David to not make the play he made. Worst case, you get perfect information to plan your next 3 turns and a brainstorm to cast at a later date, and best case, you resolve a brainstorm as normal. He clearly, either intentionally or not, broke the game state to a point where a rewind would give him a huge advantage. How is that not a game-loss?
Edit: You posted your above reply while I was still typing, and the philosophy is important, but I was under the impression that rewinds don't happen if they result in one player getting a substantial advantage?
It's not that the onus is on the opponent to notice, but that a draw resulting from a game rule violation is considered less serious than one happening for other reasons. "Advantage" in terms of whatever a specific situation is is not considered.
That's incorrect. "Advantage" is not something objective and can't be considered. What is considered is the complexity of rewinding the game state to the point prior to the error - if too much has happened since the error, the game state is left as is.Edit: You posted your above reply while I was still typing, and the philosophy is important, but I was under the impression that rewinds don't happen if they result in one player getting a substantial advantage?
IPG:
If the error was discovered within a time frame in which a player could reasonably be expected to notice the error and the situation is simple enough to safely back up without too much disruption to the course of the game, the judge may get permission from the Head Judge to back up the game to the point of the error.
“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
Something needs to be done to change these rules then. Whether or not the advantages are being considered or not, they still exist and because of this they make the game hugely unfair against one player, in this situation.
It boggles my mind to see that the rules don't take into account situational circumstances and context. I mean, judges have extensive knowledge of magic, so that judge should've known how badly his ruling fucked her shot at winning, the bottom line for me I guess is that the losing player won because they cheated/made a massive play error, and any good set of rules shouldn't allow this. It seems lazy to just have black and white, catch all rules for when something happens and to completely ignore the context (i.e. giovanna should have won, but because of the ruling she lost...)
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)