Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 62

Thread: Small change to (visible game state) trigger rules

  1. #21

    Re: Small change to (visible game state) trigger rules

    Quote Originally Posted by cdr View Post
    Toby says "with the usual flexibility for out-of-order sequencing", so I believe as long as you put the lands in within the batch of actions legally performed, you're OK.



    Combo decks use loop rules, which let you combine N repeating actions into one. If you loop and make a billion tokens, you have to put something representing those billion tokens into play before you proceed with gameplay.
    So if a twin player makes a billion pestermites without physically putting them on the battlefield (what's the best way to do this anyway?) and then says "attack with everything" they actually wouldn't win the game?

  2. #22
    itsJulian.com - Legacy Videos
    Julian23's Avatar
    Join Date

    Apr 2007
    Location

    Munich / Germany
    Posts

    3,141

    Re: Small change to (visible game state) trigger rules

    You would probably just verbally define a single item (token, sleeve, whatever seems appropriate) as representing 1.000.000 tokens, I assume.
    The seven cardinal sins of Legacy:
    1. Discuss the unbanning of Land Tax Earthcraft.
    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!).

  3. #23
    Land Destruction Enthusiast
    Megadeus's Avatar
    Join Date

    Jul 2012
    Location

    Kennesaw, GA
    Posts

    5,572

    Re: Small change to (visible game state) trigger rules

    Just bring a 5000 count box completely filled and drop it on the table and then throw it at your opponents stupid face
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Cheese View Post
    I've been taking shitty brews and tier 2 decks to tournaments and losing with them for years now. Welcome to the club. We meet for cocktails after round 6.
    Quote Originally Posted by Stevestamopz View Post
    Top quality german restraint there.

    If I'm at the point where I'm rage quitting, you can bet your kransky that I'm calling everyone involved a cunt.

  4. #24
    Hamburglar Hlelpler
    TsumiBand's Avatar
    Join Date

    Aug 2005
    Location

    Nebraska
    Posts

    2,774

    Re: Small change to (visible game state) trigger rules

    Quote Originally Posted by Megadeus View Post
    Just bring a 5000 count box completely filled and drop it on the table and then throw it at your opponents stupid face
    This seems like the most elegant solution.
    Quote Originally Posted by Dissection View Post
    Creature type - 'Fuck you mooooooom'
    Quote Originally Posted by Secretly.A.Bee View Post
    EDIT: Tsumi, you are silly.

  5. #25

    Re: Small change to (visible game state) trigger rules

    Quote Originally Posted by Star|Scream View Post
    So if a twin player makes a billion pestermites without physically putting them on the battlefield (what's the best way to do this anyway?) and then says "attack with everything" they actually wouldn't win the game?
    Borderline. Likely to get a pass, though.

    You're definitely best off doing what you're supposed to to keep the physical representation of the game accurate, which is the point of the rules 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

  6. #26
    Hamburglar Hlelpler
    TsumiBand's Avatar
    Join Date

    Aug 2005
    Location

    Nebraska
    Posts

    2,774

    Re: Small change to (visible game state) trigger rules

    Quote Originally Posted by cdr View Post
    Borderline. Likely to get a pass, though.

    You're definitely best off doing what you're supposed to to keep the physical representation of the game accurate, which is the point of the rules change.
    Ehhh I think you're walking into a "minimum number of Pestermites" troll net, if it's codified in any way people will just be sure to make that many + 1 to ensure they never need to represent Pestermite copies.

    Then again maybe this should be taken as an attempt to also reign in the number of loops people entertain; we don't need to run everything up to 2^45 loops and generate 4 kafrillion mana to RSZ the opponent for amounts that are orders upon orders of magnitude their life total, right? Makes players be like "I'll demonstrate the combo once; see how I can make as many Pestermites as I want, for as long as I want? I'll make... 11."
    Quote Originally Posted by Dissection View Post
    Creature type - 'Fuck you mooooooom'
    Quote Originally Posted by Secretly.A.Bee View Post
    EDIT: Tsumi, you are silly.

  7. #27

    Re: Small change to (visible game state) trigger rules

    Quote Originally Posted by TsumiBand View Post
    Ehhh I think you're walking into a "minimum number of Pestermites" troll net, if it's codified in any way people will just be sure to make that many + 1 to ensure they never need to represent Pestermite copies.

    Then again maybe this should be taken as an attempt to also reign in the number of loops people entertain; we don't need to run everything up to 2^45 loops and generate 4 kafrillion mana to RSZ the opponent for amounts that are orders upon orders of magnitude their life total, right? Makes players be like "I'll demonstrate the combo once; see how I can make as many Pestermites as I want, for as long as I want? I'll make... 11."
    You seem to be misunderstanding; how many tokens you make is irrelevant, how far you can go without properly representing them is the question. The rule basically requires you to do so before doing anything that requires the stack to be empty (moving to a new step/phase, playing a sorcery/land), but Out-of-Order Sequencing a block of actions is still OK as long as the physical representation is taken care of within the sequence.

    Representing a billion tokens as a piece of paper with "1 billion" written on it is fine.
    “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

  8. #28

    Re: Small change to (visible game state) trigger rules

    I'm seeing some misinterpretation here about the new Missed Trigger update, so I'd like to offer some clarification. Big picture, things should be business as usual for most of you. If you play a Batterskull, say "germ token, go," and reach for your deck box, that's fine. Even if you play it, say "go," and reach for your deck box to grab a token, that's still easily interpreted as an Out-of-Order Sequence.

    Remember, the philosophy behind the entire Missed Trigger policy is not "what technicalities can I catch my opponent on to make him miss this trigger?" It is more like "what evidence is there that this trigger was missed?" In the above examples, "reaching for the deck box" makes it pretty clear that the trigger was not missed, and these policies are not meant to punish people for taking shortcuts or doing things in a technically incorrect order.

    I'll use a real word example that I saw. This was just a few weeks before the update. A player controlled an Eidolon of Blossoms and Doomwake Giant. He cast Genesis Hydra and "cascaded" into a second Eidolon of Blossoms. He pointed to each constellation creature and said "trigger" for each one, then proceeded to shuffle for his Genesis Hydra. After shuffling, he evaluated the board and made an attack. At that point, I intervened. According to the policy at the time, he had correctly indicated the triggers at the appropriate time, but hadn't carried out the actions. After confirming with the Head Judge (Toby Elliott, L5 and head of IPG), I assessed a GRV rather than a Missed Trigger and made him draw 2 cards.

    Now, just a few weeks later, this would be classified as a Missed Trigger. Although there was an acknowledgement of the trigger, the action (draw 2 cards) wasn't carried out.

  9. #29
    get outta here, humanity.
    iamajellydonut's Avatar
    Join Date

    Jun 2009
    Location

    Butugychag
    Posts

    2,031

    Re: Small change to (visible game state) trigger rules

    I like that explanation a lot.

  10. #30

    Re: Small change to (visible game state) trigger rules

    Quote Originally Posted by iamajellydonut View Post
    I like that explanation a lot.
    Riki Hayashi tends to get that reaction.
    “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

  11. #31
    Force of Will is my bitch
    Finn's Avatar
    Join Date

    Sep 2004
    Location

    South Florida
    Posts

    2,979

    Re: Small change to (visible game state) trigger rules

    The longer I wait between tournaments, the more I am sure that some whippersnapper is going to kick my butt on a flurry of technicalities that I completely deserve due to the bad habits of casual slowly but completely replacing tournament play frost. I sometimes don't do anything whatsoever to represent the token. I just attack and block with an equipment card.
    "Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job."
    "Politicians are like diapers. They should be changed often and for the same reason."
    "Governing is too important to be left to people as silly as politicians."
    "Politicians were mostly people who'd had too little morals and ethics to stay lawyers."

  12. #32
    Here I Rule!!!!!!!!!!
    Phoenix Ignition's Avatar
    Join Date

    Oct 2008
    Location

    Minneapolis MN
    Posts

    2,287

    Re: Small change to (visible game state) trigger rules

    Quote Originally Posted by Star|Scream View Post
    So if a twin player makes a billion pestermites without physically putting them on the battlefield (what's the best way to do this anyway?) and then says "attack with everything" they actually wouldn't win the game?
    Yu Gi Oh players figured this one out already.


  13. #33
    itsJulian.com - Legacy Videos
    Julian23's Avatar
    Join Date

    Apr 2007
    Location

    Munich / Germany
    Posts

    3,141

    Re: Small change to (visible game state) trigger rules

    Just finished a round of Modern and here's why I hate this:

    My opponent never put an actual Angel into play for Geist of Sant Traf. I could have held him responsible for his shortcoming in several crucial situations, but didn't because it I couldn't get myself to fight over this. I really hate how I played worse than I could have because I didn't fight for every edge.
    The seven cardinal sins of Legacy:
    1. Discuss the unbanning of Land Tax Earthcraft.
    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!).

  14. #34

    Re: Small change to (visible game state) trigger rules

    Quote Originally Posted by Julian23 View Post
    Just finished a round of Modern and here's why I hate this:

    My opponent never put an actual Angel into play for Geist of Sant Traf. I could have held him responsible for his shortcoming in several crucial situations, but didn't because it I couldn't get myself to fight over this. I really hate how I played worse than I could have because I didn't fight for every edge.
    I really don't think that was that bad. If your opponent said "Attack with geist, take 6" or "Attack with geist, trigger" and doesn't actually put the angel into play, you can't really argue that he missed the trigger. I guess if your opponent says "attack with geist" and you get all the way to damage and he says "oh take 4 for angel" then you have a case, but you already had a case for this before this rule change.

  15. #35
    Hamburglar Hlelpler
    TsumiBand's Avatar
    Join Date

    Aug 2005
    Location

    Nebraska
    Posts

    2,774

    Re: Small change to (visible game state) trigger rules

    Quote Originally Posted by Star|Scream View Post
    I really don't think that was that bad. If your opponent said "Attack with geist, take 6" or "Attack with geist, trigger" and doesn't actually put the angel into play, you can't really argue that he missed the trigger. I guess if your opponent says "attack with geist" and you get all the way to damage and he says "oh take 4 for angel" then you have a case, but you already had a case for this before this rule change.
    I dunno, it sounds like it's exactly like he can argue for the former case. If you're saying "Attack with Geist, take 6?", that's a verbal shortcut, saying, "I suggest we move to the end of combat step after damage has been dealt, do you agree?" but if the opponent doesn't put the Angel on the battlefield, then he's pretty clearly just letting it not enter the battlefield while also trying to scoot the game state forward.

    Even if I've misunderstood the intent of this ruling - to me this example is, if nothing else, a good example of a bad shortcut. It's seriously just one token; put the shit on the battlefield, mang. You're doing it all day, putting cards on the battlefield that is. Just put the thing out there, you're the one who decided to play with Geist of St. Traft, follow through. Like are we gaining anything from not representing the token? The billion Goblins I can appreciate, but we're talking about one flipping 4/4. At the very least, do it to prevent a shitty Jedi mind trick from ever happening to you, as the Geist player. CYA is great for both players.

    Plus I mean - here's where the shitty unscrupulous players come in and allow for the Geist to swing for 6 damage and never putting a token in, but if the opponent casts, I dunno, Rakdos Charm or whatever, and they only mark down 1 life and no one notices until maybe some turns later because there's only one creature card in play on their side when it resolves - so what, were they cheating? Did they forget? Do we have to do the character examination on the opponent to make sure that they aren't just one of those Two Explores types, or do we just tell people to quit being bloody lazy and bring a single copy of a 4/4 Angel token with them when they play a deck with Geist of Saint Traft? I think the choice is pretty clear, but Magic players like to act a lot smarter than they actually are and they assume everyone's just maintaining the whole of the game state in their head 100% of the time, and it's just not so.
    Quote Originally Posted by Dissection View Post
    Creature type - 'Fuck you mooooooom'
    Quote Originally Posted by Secretly.A.Bee View Post
    EDIT: Tsumi, you are silly.

  16. #36
    A short, sturdy creature fond of drink and industry.
    PirateKing's Avatar
    Join Date

    Nov 2011
    Location

    BEST JERSEY
    Posts

    1,731

    Re: Small change to (visible game state) trigger rules

    They way it was explained further to me was that this change only affects when triggers are actually missed; they don't change any opportunities to 'gotcha' your opponent. Two scenarios:
    • Player controls Young Pyromancer and casts Brainstorm at the end of their opponent's turn. Player resolves Brainstorm, then untaps and draws their card for turn.
    • Player controls Young Pyromancer and casts Brainstorm at the end of their opponent's turn. Player points to the Young Pyromancer and says "trigger", resolves Brainstorm, then untaps and draws their card for turn.

    Both cases the player missed the Young Pyromancer trigger. Even if they showed awareness, because they never did the thing, it was missed. So before, just saying "trigger" allowed for sloppy take-backsies because you didn't 'miss it', you said trigger two turns ago, so now something-something now I get my thing. Now, if you miss it, you miss it, regardless of what words come out of your mouth. All the corner cases and proposed shortcuts don't represent examples of missed triggers.
    Quote Originally Posted by GreatWhale View Post
    Gross, other formats. I puked in my mouth a little.

  17. #37
    get outta here, humanity.
    iamajellydonut's Avatar
    Join Date

    Jun 2009
    Location

    Butugychag
    Posts

    2,031

    Re: Small change to (visible game state) trigger rules

    I feel like...

    (after your opponent announced his attack and indicated an awareness of the trigger but failed to put a representative marker likely under the assumption that there would be no effects between attacking and damage)

    ... that if you had asked to move to declare blockers, regardless of whether you actually had effects or not, and your opponent still failed to put a token into play, that it would then fairly be considered a missed trigger.

  18. #38
    Member

    Join Date

    Apr 2007
    Location

    Leicester, UK
    Posts

    609

    Re: Small change to (visible game state) trigger rules

    Quote Originally Posted by Julian23 View Post
    My opponent never put an actual Angel into play for Geist of Sant Traf. I could have held him responsible for his shortcoming in several crucial situations, but didn't because it I couldn't get myself to fight over this. I really hate how I played worse than I could have because I didn't fight for every edge.
    Except that is one of the items listed on the judge page as fine!

    April 10, 2015 at 12:23 pm telliott says: Attack for 6 is fine.
    My Legacy Decks of choice: Pox, Miracles, D&T or Lands.
    Online Trading Reference Checker

  19. #39
    Hamburglar Hlelpler
    TsumiBand's Avatar
    Join Date

    Aug 2005
    Location

    Nebraska
    Posts

    2,774

    Re: Small change to (visible game state) trigger rules

    Well that's... inconsistent and terrible, but w/e
    Quote Originally Posted by Dissection View Post
    Creature type - 'Fuck you mooooooom'
    Quote Originally Posted by Secretly.A.Bee View Post
    EDIT: Tsumi, you are silly.

  20. #40

    Re: Small change to (visible game state) trigger rules

    Quote Originally Posted by TsumiBand View Post
    Well that's... inconsistent and terrible, but w/e
    It's not, because he is not forgetting the trigger. This is a special case though, because unlike an opponent forgetting a germ token and then passing the turn, the angel is immediately attacking. There is no ambiguity about whether or not it is happening. In this instance you're simply just trying to rules-lawyer your opponent.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)