I think we are theoretically assuming that the judge isn't an idiot. Should have appealed to the head judge. If that shit works, I'm buying 1000 Lotus Vale's right now.
Originally Posted by Richard Cheese
Ya, that has not worked for a decade or more...Well, in fact asking a judge is also not determinating. In a competitive tournament of above 100 players my oponent played Lake of the dead and -"in response to the trigger effect, he wanted to sac his only swamp to addto pool"-. I said he could not do this, we called a judge and he approved the play. So........
You would think a judge would know that for old cards you really need to look up and read the oracle text.
Was this an actual DCI judge, or just someone acting as one at that tournament?
Judges can of course get things wrong on occasion, from inexperience, lack of familiarity with the format, or whatever, which is why you can appeal to the HJ. If something doesn't sound right, appeal.
A judge is still far more likely to be correct than your opponent.
“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
These are mind games I usually dont support on our small EDH group when i am making tournament.
Example:
a) Rolling a die...
Our local rules states that the one who wins the roll begins. Usually he has the choice to begin, or not but its typical in duels, but not much usable in 4 player FFA.
b) People may create teams by how they are sitting around the table. So I came up with a rule which states that direction of the play is determined by the player who is sitting next to the winner and rolled higher number when compared to the other.
...the advance of computerisation, however, has not yet wiped out nations and ethnic groups...
You should notice that there's a difference between playing for fun and playing competitively for often several hundreds of Euros.
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!).
Wut?
http://www.casualplayers.org/
Long story short - ex-judge master-class cheater, banned for sanctioned tournaments near our playgroup with no sense for casual. :)
If we want to play EDH only a bit competetive (lets say prize for 20 euro) we need a judge and quite strict rules (for a casual format), just because of him.
If we want to play casual only, then without him.
And if we want to play pub/fun casual - like then mostly out of the club. Most people here dont have sense for EDH politics at all :)
...the advance of computerisation, however, has not yet wiped out nations and ethnic groups...
Probably why Edh is a horrible format. "Politics" are stupid.
Still, I would forgive the guy. The errata on this whole family of cards is completely contrary to the printed text, like a clear 180 degrees from what it actually says, so unless you've been carefully checking Oracle text on everything you play, you could miss it. Unlikely this was an intentional problem.
(Also, this particular errata is horsepoop. Sure, Lotus Vale and Ruins are broken so keep em nerfed. But why oh why would you nerf the Alliance lands, too?)
Locally you should tell your opponent also if you know it doesn't work why do it? if you plan on attending a big event you shouldn't count on your opponent not knowing the rules. Every time I play Tabernacle at a local event I explain how the creatures get the ability same goes for Chains I always explain it. There is no need to make the match into a "gotcha!" game.
Then you're not doing everything you can to win. There is value in those "gotcha!" moments. Ethically, I actually endorse them.
The people who are Jedi mind tricking everyone are working alot harder than those who don't. It's a mindset, refuse to lose, ever.
Assuming that a judge is not an idiot is a pretty far leap of faith. In the last year, I've dealt with so many judges that know barely enough to land L1, that I'm nearly in auto-appeal mode... or just not playing in an event when certain people are judging.
Back on topic, though.
@OP (regarding Revoker on Bridge). This is very muddy water.
If your opponent just assumes that you have 'turned off' his Bridge from Below, and starts not putting Zombies into play when he should, then you are safe. You don't have to notify him, or clarify anything.
If he asks you anything about it, and you give him false information, you can get a loss.
Imagine you Revoke his Bridge, and he says, "Oh man, that sucks! So now they don't make Zombies?" You nod, or say, 'I think so,' or even if he tries to put a zombie in, and you point to your Revoker, you might be found to be misrepresenting the rules (which carries penalties).
If you just stonewall him, and say nothing, you're fine. Scumbaggy? Debatable. Legal? Certainly.
Wrong. You will get disqualified and most likely suspended for several months if not a year. But it's 100% in your control not to have that happen to you. Don't cheat and you are fine.
If you think you can't walk what you make look like a thin line (which in my opinion it is not), stay away from leading your opponent into bad plays, but be aware that you are now playing worse than you could be.
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!).
I would never lie about how the interaction works. But ifmy opponent simply assumes it and didn't do anything is the question. Obviously I'm not lying if they ask.
Julian, you're the best.
If you know the oracle text on a card and you're sure you have it right you should ask the judge to look it up. It's a huge problem with the number of cards in play and I often will just cede the point if I'm not 100% sure on a card. I don't want the judge looking at me cross-eyed the next time he comes to my table.Well, in fact asking a judge is also not determinating. In a competitive tournament of above 100 players my oponent played Lake of the dead and -"in response to the trigger effect, he wanted to sac his only swamp to add
I'd have been pretty pissed on that one though. The "If X would enter the battlefield do Y and put X onto the battlefield" is a pretty standard oracle change on many cards of that type at this point.
God god dammit I hate these Jedi mind trick-y threads :)
Misrepresentation is never the right play because if your opponent is not a dumbass, you're effed. So anything that approaches that is just a poor decision, whether via action or inaction.
It's like this in every game. As an example, there's about a 45 second clip from a Scrabble documentary that pretty much sums up my thoughts on the subject (in both Scrabble AND MtG).
Watch starting @ 1:04:00, if the time index thing doesn't work.
As for "Revoker naming something-with-no-activated-abilities", isn't that just tantamount to throwing away Revoker's ability? You can say "not if it wins you the game", but if anyone actually caught it, then you'd be the one getting a questionable write-up in a tourney report while the rest of the interwebs goes "lulz that noob said what card with Revoker?"
I mean isn't there something to be recognized about a hollow line of play like that? The problem is that someone somewhere knows better. It's not about strategy at that point; you try to pull a fast one on the wrong person, and you really just devalue your own play by not naming something relevant. The wrong play isn't ever the right play, just because it worked out previously.
Good luck thinking of something to name against Dredge past turn one if they're not playing Griselbrand.
The tournament I started is over. You should join the next one.
Cephalid Coliseum for needle, LED for Revoker.
Putrid Imp if they might need it as a discard outlet.
Yeah there's almost always SOMEthing, and if there isn't then it doesn't matter anyway. I will assume that my meaning is plain without constructing strawmen for or against; obviously if it's NoActivatedAbilities.dec then there is nothing to name anyway. That's not what I'm even talking about here
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Reply With Quote