Sorry, you didn't understand what I said. Why would you backup there? The moment your opponent says "ok" to Brainstorm he missed his Chalice trigger. If he has't said "ok" yet, you're probably in for a game loss and maybe even an investigation for maybe doing what you did on purpose.Originally Posted by Tammit67
You're saying lying isn't easy when a judge is involved. I am not contesting that. I am saying that they make it easier.
Player A casts Flusterstorm
Player B : "did you remember the Storm trigger?"
Player A: "lol, of course."
In 99% of games the player will actually not have forgotten. But there is always this little % that a cheater gets away because he has a rather easy time selling his story. What I am suggesting is that it should be ok for Player B to just say "pay for the Flusterstorm" once both players have passed priority. Player A is assumed to have passed priority unless otherwise stated, so it's up to B whether he wants to resolve the top item of the stack right now. What you are saying is that before he gets to do that he must give his opponent one more "get out of jail free" card by giving him one more opportunity to remember his trigger even though he had already passed priority.
The example is somewhat far-fetched but this is about the principle behind the rules as it's clear that more likely situations could always occur. Besides that, the likeliness of a situation should not determine what would be the just/fair thing to do in the first place. Justice is abstract and applicable to any situation.
Call me a Magic Justice Warrior or whatever, but I think we really should be much harsher on people even just potentially gaining an (maybe even unintended) advantage from unclear/ambiguous plays.
What you call "gotchas" is what teaches people to play a clean and fair game. If you don't play by the rules you will eventually get an unfair advantage because your opponent decided to not "gotcha" you. It's just another source of promoting clean Magic. Plays like Chapin's "all my legal targets gain Fear" is a great way of gaining a fair advantage over an opponent unaware of the board state or what a spell does. If you fall for something like that, you deserve to suffer the consequences.
That's what I mean. There's a very clear difference between saying "A Sorcery and an Instant" and "Only a sorcery and an instant". The second is a clear attempt at cheating if phrased that way on purpose.Tarmogoyf is communication policy. Player communication can certainly get technical, so that's another area you're best not to try to get "tricky" in without being very sure you know where the lines are. If an opponent simply asks "What's in your yard?" (and there's absolutely nothing indicating he is looking specifically for the number of types of cards) and you answer "Well, there's a sorcery, a land, and an instant" (and there's absolutely nothing implying you're giving a complete answer), then you might be OK. Screw up and not understand the communication rules as well as you thought and you could just as easily get disqualified for cheating if a judge finds you went over the line. I don't think you're generally gaining enough advantage to make "tricks" worth the trouble. Jackie Lee thought she was being (legally) tricky and ended up DQed from a PT, among many other examples.
The difference is that Jackie Lee broke a clear rule of the game and was rightfully DQ'ed. A "gotcha" is not a "gotcha" when it breaks a rule.
You might not like players attempting tricky technical plays because it might get them punished. But honestly, what do you care? One less cheater playing the game. If the play is very tricky but legal, why would you criticize (as in "strong distate" etc.) them for it?
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!).
Because most people (including the people that make the game and the people that make the rules) want people to play the game, not "play the rules". That's the gist of it. Having technical rules is necessary to cover messy corner cases, but most people don't find having to worry about playing and communicating technically perfect every moment very enjoyable.
Few informed people would call Jackie Lee "a cheater" and she wasn't suspended following the DQ. If the rules had been written slightly differently at the time Patrick Chapin did his famous trick, he could've easily been DQed.
If you think you you can walk the line on technical gotchas perfectly every time, your ego is eventually in for a beating. There's at least 10 Jackie Lee incidents for every Patrick Chapin incident.
“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 I assume it's eventually compromise between ease of play and integrity of the game. I can live with the people in charge arriving at a slightly different point on the <ease of play>-------<integrity> scale than I do, because that eventually makes it clear that it's not a question of underlying principle but one of personal perception on how the compromise should be balanced. Those things can hardly be discussed.
How is one's ego connected to how rules-knowledgeable someone is? I can see frowning upon players who base their ego on their skill....but knowing the rules? If anything, you should promote people being proud of playing on a tight technical level.If you think you you can walk the line on technical gotchas perfectly every time, your ego is eventually in for a beating. There's at least 10 Jackie Lee incidents for every Patrick Chapin incident.
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!).
Integrity of the game has little to nothing to do with it. If anything, people attempting to take advantage of technicalities of meta-rules is what damages the integrity of the game. When your opponent asks "What's in your yard?" you know exactly what he's asking; everyone in the room knows what he's asking. The communication rules needing to be designed to be concise while covering as many cases as possible may at the moment allow you to basically legally lie, but why go through all the trouble? Far simpler to just make him determine the answer himself or just answer truthfully, and better for the game.
Is Kenji Tsumura a bad player for always reminding opponents of their Pact triggers?
“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 disagree. People playing inside the rules can never damage the integrity of the game. The only people damaging it are the ones who make a technical mistake and then don't want to suffer the consequences of their unclear/ambiguous play by labelling their opponent's play as "shady" or what you call a "gotcha".
Other than that I provided you with an example of how the integrity is compromissed in the Flusterstorm example. Maybe you are looking at it from another idea of what "integrity of the game" should mean, but the way I see it, it's all about punishing people who make mistakes while rewarding tight, clean and clear play. "Clear" does not mean that you are helping your opponent; if your opponent makes an unclear play, you should never be put into a position where you are a) guessing what he is doing or b) Helping him make a proper play.
Also, don't draw strawmans like that. You and I know that Kenji is one of the greatest to ever play the game. What we are talking about here is very far from as important as individual playskill and testing are to your final performance. For the sake of your question though, every legal advantage you don't take lowers your performance and EV. It doesn't matter whether you missed the advantage because you are incompetent or have moral doubts. We have rules so we don't need morals to judge a situation as morals are unreliable and unpredictable.
I'm still a bit worried that you as a judge can see a player make a legal play and still have negative feelings about it. Hate the rules that allow a player to do it, not the player playing by them. I mean, I totally agree that it doesn't "feel right" and wish we could just play the game as literally written on the cards (meaning that mandatory triggers can't be missed). But in the current setting of the rules there is no difference between making a "tricky" play and e.g. seeing a lethal attack on a complicated board.
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!).
This gets goofy though, specifically your example of counterbalance.
The opponent plays a spell, you trigger "invisibly", you then go to flip the card and they go "no, Stifle" or w/e. A judge won't say "You missed your chance to stifle." If they play a spell, you get stuck explicitly mentioning the CB trigger or priority because they implicitly didn't hold priority. The second you go to resolve it or bypass it someone has to make it obvious what's going on either because of implicit priority passing or because people are trying to resolve things. What's worse for the CB player is that if he flips his top card immediately he'll get the warning for looking at extra cards when the opponent says "WHOA, excuse me? Stifling the trigger?" It's not really any different than someone brainstorming and immediately drawing cards when the opponent says "whoa, Vialing a SotL." You already drew extra cards because you didn't pass priority (which I imagine in almost any case will kill you since a backup is required BUT you drew the cards.)
This is all based on the idea that priority is implicitly passed unless you say "holding priority" (or some such.)
Certainly if I say "Ponder, in response, Brainstorm" you don't have to mention that there's a CB trigger for Ponder sitting in between there yet, but there's no way you can "gotcha!" someone outside of instant speed priority handling with a CB trigger due to having to mention "holding priority" or having to attempt to resolve the trigger (which is something a human can logically respond to.)
You could possibly "gotcha" someone by ensuring they passed priority before resolving the trigger (in which case they couldn't stifle) but you'd be stuck asking about Priority which is almost as bad as saying "HEY IDIOT. THERE'S A GOD DAMN CB RIGHT THERE."
P.S. I know that stifling CB is going to be an abysmal play 99% of the time, but it's the only obvious card to name.
Also, i agree with the rest of your post regarding Storm Triggers, Craterhoof, and probably exalted/prowess/etc.. but CB is a goofy example IMO.
I remember when I countered Demigod of Revenge in T2 and he recurred itself with his trigger. He didn't have to announce anything...
Yes an odd example (outdated rules) but what I am trying to say it just feels bad if you get trapped like that. I mean now I know that I have to wait till the trigger resolves and then counter Demigod, but I am sure 90% of all player misplayed this just once! Why cant I let my cards do what I intend them to do...(if nothing gets announced) Like wtf ofc my flusterstorm triggers!
“Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn.
Because your intention may differ from their function, I guess?
I am not a good Poker player but there is a saying I grew up hearing that I associate to the game. The handful of times I did try to play, these geezers would show no compunction at taking a sucker for a sucker even if it was clear that the new kid (me) Just Wasn't Getting It. It wasn't until this other kook came, this other old bastard, and started playing and would call shenanigans. I'd miss the strength of my hand for whatever reason - there were too many wild cards, or I just wasn't holding it right, or just didn't see it, too new or too stupid to get it - and he'd always point it out when the cards hit the table.
"Stop giving the kid an edge, grumble grumble" they'd say. "He said it was two-pair, it doesn't matter if it was a full boat" (or something totally obvious like that, that's not a great example)
The old dude would say, "Money talks, bullshit walks - however, the cards speak for themselves. Kid's got 7s in 4s. You lost. Lighten up."
I hesitate to invoke a slippery slope argument, but honestly - what else would you expect from a game with so many complicated interactions? The cards and the rules have to be the touchstone for all observations. They have to, or else it's just a bunch of administering the judge test to each other while a game of cards goes on under the radar. cdr put it succinctly:
...[M]ost people (including the people that make the game and the people that make the rules) want people to play the game, not "play the rules".
First off, it is generally extremely difficult to legitimately miss a storm trigger. Nobody actually forgets to tell the opponent "you're dead" after a lethal Tendrils or Grapeshot or a lethal (at next draw step) Brain Freeze. Nobody actually forgets to put tokens down for Empty the Warrens, or insist something has been well and truly countered by Flusterstorm, etc. It's hard to miss storm precisely because there's a gigantic effect that the controller is going to acknowledge in some fashion, and trigger policy is extremely forgiving with regard to how little you can do and still be considered to have acknowledged a trigger.
As to philosophy of why it is this way, and why "cards don't do what they do", and so on, the simple answer is that the alternatives tend to be worse than the policy we have now, and the policy we have now is the product of years of iteration.
The longer answer, for those who are interested, goes like this:
There has never been a time I'm aware of -- and I've been involved in Magic off and on since Ice Age -- when "100% of triggers are 100% required to happen 100% correctly 100% of the time" has been tournament policy. There's always been an acknowledgement that players are sometimes going to forget about a triggered ability, and that sometimes it will be more disruptive to the game to suddenly make the trigger happen than it would be to leave it unresolved (a lot of the remedies for game-rules-related problems actually share this philosophy: when the game state is broken already, we should at least not break it even worse).
So this leaves us with some questions to answer. Three of them, in fact:
- When can we identify that a triggered ability has in fact definitively been missed?
- When we reach that point, how do we decide whether the ability should resolve anyway?
- Who do we hold responsible for a missed trigger, and what form does that responsibility take?
The answer to (1) is complicated to put into policy language, but easy to explain: a trigger is missed when we are clearly past the point where it would have had some effect that players must have noticed, and that effect hasn't happened. Until we have that definitively one way or another, policy says judges and players should assume it has resolved correctly (in other words, triggers aren't "assumed missed until proven resolved", they're "assumed resolved until proven missed"). This takes a lot of words in policy because it has to account for all the various ways triggered abilities can take a while to have some definitively-noticeable effect on the game. For example, many power/toughness-altering triggers (exalted is the popular example) aren't necessarily noticeable until something -- combat damage, or surviving some sort of damage-dealing or toughness-reducing event -- occurs which actually needs the creature's power/toughness.
The answer to (2) has always been a bit flow-chart-y. Under previous iterations of policy, it would look first at whether the trigger was optional, then at whether it had a default action, then finally mostly would look at the time (in game terms, not clock terms) elapsed since the trigger was missed. Now, the flow chart goes like this:
- Did it have a default action? If yes, resolve it with the default action and stop. The opponent chooses whether that happens right away, or at the start of the next phase of the turn.
- Was it a delayed trigger that would move some game object from one game zone to another? If yes, move that object appropriately and stop. The opponent chooses whether that happens right away, or at the start of the next phase of the turn.
- Did the trigger create an effect whose duration has already expired (like "until end of turn")? If so, stop. The players continue playing the game as-is.
- Look at what phase of the turn it currently is, and look back to the beginning of the same phase during the previous player's turn. Was the trigger missed prior to that time? If so, stop. The players continue playing the game as-is.
- If you have not reached a "stop" instruction, ask the opponent whether they would like the trigger to be put on the stack now. If the opponent says no, stop. The players continue playing the game as-is. If the opponent says yes, put the ability on the stack in its correct position if possible, or at the bottom of the stack otherwise, and stop. If the trigger requires choices, only game objects which were in the correct zone at the time the ability should have happened may be chosen (i.e., if the trigger says "sacrifice a creature", you can't sacrifice something that wasn't on the battlefield when the ability should have happened).
Which is complicated, but basically codifies a lot of kitchen-table-type intuition about how this should work. For the most part, things that don't make sense to apply now don't get applied, things that do make sense to apply now get applied, things you forgot about that would've been good for you don't happen, and things you forgot about that would've been bad for you do happen.
The answer to (3) is the one that's undergone the biggest change, and really comes down to looking at what sort of behavior is incentivized by the various possibilities. For a long time, both players were held responsible for all triggered abilities regardless of controller, and both players received penalties when a trigger was missed (although the penalty given to the opponent was one that generally did not upgrade with repeated offenses, but was still tracked for investigative purposes). The problems with this first started to enter the Magic-playing public's view around New Phyrexia, when this led to the unfortunate case of people who by policy should have been receiving Game Loss penalties from upgrading repeated missed Shrine of Burning Rage triggers (Soul Sisters was kind of a precursor, but Shrine was really the straw that broke the camel's back). I remember one GP in particular where the Head Judge flat-out instructed everyone that missed Shrine triggers were not going to be upgraded in that event, and that a solution for the problem was being worked on.
The discussion around that turned up not just the "I don't want to have to coach my opponent" complaints, but also an understanding that the everybody-is-responsible policy created incentives to do bad things. Under that policy, when you noticed that your opponent missed a trigger, the strategic best thing for you to do was keep your mouth shut, hope your opponent wouldn't notice (since odds were you didn't want it to happen, and you'd want to avoid getting a Warning yourself), and lie to your opponent and to judges if it ever did get noticed, by pretending that you forgot it too. We do not want to give people an incentive to lie to judges.
Keeping everybody-is-responsible, but removing the dual penalty (so only the controller receives a penalty), still has an incentive problem; there's no longer an incentive to try to lie to avoid the Warning, but there's still an incentive to lie when you don't want your opponent to get the ability. And again, we don't ant to give people an incentive to lie to judges.
Which gets us to... what we have now, after some rough drafts and iterations. Only the controller of a triggered ability is responsible for it. If you miss your trigger, your opponent has no obligation to speak up, and if you realize you missed it later, they have no incentive to lie about whether they noticed because they haven't done anything illegal that they'd want to cover up.
As to the form that responsibility takes, we now do not universally issue a penalty to someone who misses a trigger. Now we only issue a penalty if the trigger is one that -- considered in a vacuum, divorced from the game state at hand -- is generally detrimental to its controller (the rule of thumb is: if people play the card because of the awesome trigger, not detrimental; if people play the card because it's awesome in spite of the terrible power-balancing trigger, it's detrimental). For anything that's not generally detrimental, simply not getting the effect of the ability is usually punishment enough, and serves as a hand-on-hot-stove learning moment. Plus, the three-strikes upgrade path resets on each day of a multi-day event, cutting down on the accumulated "forgot my trigger" Game Losses.
And that's a lot of words to explain why things are the way they are, but sometimes a lot of words are what's needed.
Speaking as an unapologetic over-explainer, the above post is pretty rad. It is true that understanding how we got to this version of exception handling in Magic helps one to see why it is as it is.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Reply With Quote