Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 62

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

  1. #41

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Star|Scream View Post
    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.
    That's not what the infraction says, though.

    The controller must take the appropriate physical action or make it clear what the action taken or choice made is before taking any game actions (such as casting a sorcery spell or explicitly moving to the next step or phase) that can be taken only after the triggered ability should have resolved.

    Out-of-order sequencing lets you take a batch of legal actions all at once as long as you end up with a legal and understood game state, but I personally don't see how never putting an token into play while attacking is defensible.
    “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

  2. #42
    Member

    Join Date

    Oct 2011
    Location

    Denmark
    Posts

    445

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

    List of trigger examples from matches at MKM Rome.

    1: My opponent has chalice of the void (1) in play. I call over the judge to hang out for 30 seconds. I play preordain. My opponent says "ok". I look at the top two cards, put one at the bottom, one on top and I say "draw the one card" and my opponent then says - wait, chalice of the void!?

    The judge says he missed the trigger. I draw the card.

    2: same setup, same player, two turns later:
    Plays mystikal tutor. I point to his chalice of the void and say: "It triggers, countering your tutor". He tries to take the play back, but i must tell him that countered spells go to the graveyard.

    3: Another match. My opponent casts snapcaster mage. I think, say "ok". He puts it into play, then fetches, taps the fetched land for mana and says "play repeal from my graveyard" I say: you missed the trigger. A judge confirms this. The ruling is appealed on the basis that he has no other spells in the graveyard. The head judge confirms him missing the trigger.

    4: (not triggers, but still) I have Dack Fayden in play. My opponent attacks. I think for a while and say: "No blockers, take two?" He then says: "No attack dack fayden". I call the judge. The ruling is that if nothing is announced, its assumed that the player is attacked.



    Am I a horrible person? A rules lawyer?

    This was comepetitive level rules enforcement and I enjoy the competitive environment. I expect my opponents to call a judge if i do anything illegal, as i will also call the judge on myself when i do so. (this actually happened twice, once i drew a starting 8, and once i looked at the second to top card with a delver trigger, not seeing the top card, as they were sticking together)


    Making mistakes should be costly. Playing perfectly should be rewarded. This is also a game of concentration. That is a skill.
    "Brainstorm and Fetchlands are interesting although I don't know if Brainstorms alone are worth it right now, because Stifle is a common card. " -Peddi 2015.

  3. #43
    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

    Quote Originally Posted by lyracian View Post
    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.
    I don't know what that crying smiley is supposed to mean. I assume it's meant to mock me for not understanding or having read what you quote. I find that to be an incredibly childish, inmature and offensive behavior, it really bothers me...because I think it's actually you who did not understand what was talked about, which would make your whole "" totally backfire at your matureness and credibility. I just had to get that one out of my system because it's one of the most annoying things during discussions.

    To explain what I think is wrong about your reasoning:
    We are talking about when and when not required to physically represent something. You quote Tobi's statement about "attack for 6" being enough. That means "attack for 6" is good enough to replace the physical act of putting an Angel into play. However, this is irrelevant to the situation. The situation in question is an opponent tapping Geist, allowing blockers, then upon combat damage suddenly implying that the Angel had been put into play. I think I should have fought that but instead let him have his Angel since deep down inside I still feel that is how Magic should actually be played. Which makes it hard, since playing Magic to the best of my/your/anyone's ability means definitely fighting over that.

    What Star|Scream said isn't really relevant or related to how the rules work as your cdr pointed out.

    Also, this entire discussion it about what people call "Rules-Lawyering" in the first place. Or it is not. That is because nobody knows where exactly the integrity of the game ends and where rules-lawyering starts. I think that something such as "rules-lawyering" is just as much part of playing the game as is playing a land, casting a creature or arriving to your table in time. The best protection against "rule-lawyering" is to play the game correctly and according to the rules, then you will never be screwed over, corner-case scenarios where your opponent starts lying to a judge aside. But at that point we are talking about Cheating, which we only have limited protection against anyways.
    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!).

  4. #44

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

    Quote Originally Posted by cdr View Post
    That's not what the infraction says, though.

    The controller must take the appropriate physical action or make it clear what the action taken or choice made is before taking any game actions (such as casting a sorcery spell or explicitly moving to the next step or phase) that can be taken only after the triggered ability should have resolved.

    Out-of-order sequencing lets you take a batch of legal actions all at once as long as you end up with a legal and understood game state, but I personally don't see how never putting an token into play while attacking is defensible.

    So you're saying that even though the attacking player clearly verbally demonstrates the trigger in the attack step (Attack for 6), his opponent is allowed to wait until damage before calling a judge claiming that the attacker missed the angel trigger?

    I don't understand how it can be legal for you to wait to gotcha your opponent like that.

    Julian23:

    I am only talking about THIS specific example, where the attacking player verbally indicates at the beginning of combat that he is resolving the trigger. In your example, your opponent did appear to miss the trigger.

  5. #45
    Hamburglar Hlelpler
    TsumiBand's Avatar
    Join Date

    Aug 2005
    Location

    Nebraska
    Posts

    2,774

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

    Thing is, there are 10k+ game pieces in Magic, and because they don't all work in the same way, the game state has to be maintained as accurately as possible. The rules can't make provisions for relative strength of the cards involved.

    I was going to construct a scenario involving effects between the first step in combat and the last, but honestly that's pointless - just consider that the board state could just become convoluted when the focus is taken off of the battlefield and placed on the stack. Like a counter-war over a removal spell happens or something, and it ends with both players derping and forgetting that there's an Angel token in play. It doesn't really matter what was cast or why, that's not the point - the point is, failing to make it a habit to produce an Angel token can lead to situations where the actual number of creatures is unclear, or the total power and toughness of creatures in play is unclear, or even something stupid like a 4-point discrepancy between players in regard to what actual life totals are because the Geist player won't just put a flipping Angel on the battlefield.

    I mean if I were a judge I'd want to be able to come to a table and just look at the board and at least assume that 100% of the information is in play. The stack and life totals and other intangibles can be sussed out; the battlefield is the only zone in the game that both players can actively see which speaks for itself. Why would you cloud that?
    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.

  6. #46
    Site Contributor
    apple713's Avatar
    Join Date

    Jan 2012
    Location

    Manhattan, NY
    Posts

    2,086

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Finn View Post
    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.
    I am in the same boat as you Finn

    Quote Originally Posted by Phelix View Post
    List of trigger examples from matches at MKM Rome.

    1: My opponent has chalice of the void (1) in play. I call over the judge to hang out for 30 seconds. I play preordain. My opponent says "ok". I look at the top two cards, put one at the bottom, one on top and I say "draw the one card" and my opponent then says - wait, chalice of the void!?

    The judge says he missed the trigger. I draw the card.

    2: same setup, same player, two turns later:
    Plays mystikal tutor. I point to his chalice of the void and say: "It triggers, countering your tutor". He tries to take the play back, but i must tell him that countered spells go to the graveyard.

    3: Another match. My opponent casts snapcaster mage. I think, say "ok". He puts it into play, then fetches, taps the fetched land for mana and says "play repeal from my graveyard" I say: you missed the trigger. A judge confirms this. The ruling is appealed on the basis that he has no other spells in the graveyard. The head judge confirms him missing the trigger.

    4: (not triggers, but still) I have Dack Fayden in play. My opponent attacks. I think for a while and say: "No blockers, take two?" He then says: "No attack dack fayden". I call the judge. The ruling is that if nothing is announced, its assumed that the player is attacked.



    Am I a horrible person? A rules lawyer?

    This was comepetitive level rules enforcement and I enjoy the competitive environment. I expect my opponents to call a judge if i do anything illegal, as i will also call the judge on myself when i do so. (this actually happened twice, once i drew a starting 8, and once i looked at the second to top card with a delver trigger, not seeing the top card, as they were sticking together)


    Making mistakes should be costly. Playing perfectly should be rewarded. This is also a game of concentration. That is a skill.
    I tend to think of things as if they were happening on magic online where the rules are continuously enforced. If you get away with something in real life that would never have happened online, you are probably abusing the rules.

    1. Prime example. You intended to deceive this player as suggested by you calling to judge over to witness your cunning manipulation of the rules. You knew that the spell would be countered and put into the graveyard unless "my opponent lets me break the rules." You opted to test the boundaries and this though process should not be rewarded. Although it is permissible in paper magic, it shouldnt be. In online magic the trigger would have happened and he would have countered the spell like the card was intended to be played. It is especially sneaky and deceptive because you clearly understand the rules and should have never been able to get away with this. Chalice of the void is not a "conditional" counterspell.

    Furthermore, in my opinion, when the opponent acknowledged "ok" he was probably thinking "sure, it'll get countered i have no responses"
    2. opponent at fault
    3. you are nitpicking. you clearly understand the rules, and it is implied that the only possible target is the repeal. Looking back to the magic online example, It would have triggered and inevitably repeal would have been chosen.
    4. opponent at fault



    Back to the topic.

    Although this rule doesn't seem terrible, over time I have seen where the technicalities of rules have disrupted the gameplay. Unfortunately there is not an alternative solution when prizes are at stake. Kids will lie, cheat, and steal for next to nothing now days.
    Play 4 Card Blind!

    Currently Playing
    Legacy: Dark Depths
    EDH: 5-Color Hermit Druid

    Currently Brewing: [Deck] Sadistic Sacrament / Chalice NO Eldrazi

    why cards are so expensive...hoarders

  7. #47
    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
    So you're saying that even though the attacking player clearly verbally demonstrates the trigger in the attack step (Attack for 6), his opponent is allowed to wait until damage before calling a judge claiming that the attacker missed the angel trigger?

    I don't understand how it can be legal for you to wait to gotcha your opponent like that.
    See that's not a gotcha in my mind though. What the real gotcha is, is expecting players to track the game state when aspects of it that can absolutely be easily physically represented are not actually being manifested. Just remove that expectation from players, there's enough going on most of the time that it's unnecessary to burden either player with that expectation. If we're sticking to the Geist example, it is literally just one token. I don't find that to be a defensible time to shortcut the actual act of putting a thing on the battlefield. We're not talking about putting 43,618,399 Pestermite tokens into play here - and even if we were, they can typically be represented with a single object as well. Just come on.
    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.

  8. #48

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

    Quote Originally Posted by TsumiBand View Post
    See that's not a gotcha in my mind though. What the real gotcha is, is expecting players to track the game state when aspects of it that can absolutely be easily physically represented are not actually being manifested. Just remove that expectation from players, there's enough going on most of the time that it's unnecessary to burden either player with that expectation. If we're sticking to the Geist example, it is literally just one token. I don't find that to be a defensible time to shortcut the actual act of putting a thing on the battlefield. We're not talking about putting 43,618,399 Pestermite tokens into play here - and even if we were, they can typically be represented with a single object as well. Just come on.
    I apologize that I am not adequately able to describe my point. In my head it makes sense, I swear! If I attack with my geist and I verbally indicate that an angel is attacking (attacking for 6) , at what point can my opponent honestly say I forgot my trigger? What if my opponent notates that he took 6 life, and then at the end step says "wait, you didn't put down the token?"

    What if I say "attacking for 6," pause, and then he immediately says "well there's no token so.. gotcha!"

    These are the situations that I think you cannot say there was a missed trigger.

  9. #49

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Star|Scream View Post
    So you're saying that even though the attacking player clearly verbally demonstrates the trigger in the attack step (Attack for 6), his opponent is allowed to wait until damage before calling a judge claiming that the attacker missed the angel trigger?
    Yes, the entire rule change is that verbally acknowledging a trigger that requires physical representation is no longer sufficient. You can get away with doing things out of order a little with the out-of-order sequencing rule, but players need to adjust and properly maintain the physical state of the game.

    Just put your tokens/counters out before proceeding with the game and then judges won't have to decide when you've crossed the line.
    “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

  10. #50

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

    Quote Originally Posted by cdr View Post
    Yes, the entire rule change is that verbally acknowledging a trigger that requires physical representation is no longer sufficient. You can get away with doing things out of order a little with the out-of-order sequencing rule, but players need to adjust and properly maintain the physical state of the game.

    Just put your tokens/counters out before proceeding with the game and then judges won't have to decide when you've crossed the line.

    I get what you're saying, but then on the judge blog:

    http://blogs.magicjudges.org/telliot...es-for-judges/

    Hi Toby!

    How does the new trigger policy affect Geist of Saint Traft? Do you always have to put a token onto the battlefield now or are there still situations where just saying “attack for 6″ is fine?
    telliott says:

    April 10, 2015 at 12:23 pm

    Attack for 6 is fine.

  11. #51

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

    A five word response doesn't convey much information. If you don't expect your opponent to interact at all during combat, you could maybe squint and see "attack for 6" as out-of-order sequencing. Riki's post above seems to indicate he has a very expansive interpretation of out-of-order sequencing, and I don't entirely agree. But Toby/Riki are judge leadership and I'm not a judge, so take that for whatever it's worth.
    “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

  12. #52
    Member

    Join Date

    Apr 2014
    Location

    Fairfax V.A.
    Posts

    58

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

    I honestly think with the Geist example putting the token into play during combat is a must and failing to do so is a missed trigger. The reason I say this is because I find that this sitaution of not putting tokens into play at the appropriate time must apply in all cases to ensure proper gameplay. I have had opponents who play young pyromancer, cast a bunch of instant spells, point at the pyromancer for each trigger and then proceed to put all the tokens into play later during the combat step and then swing for the fences, even though 1 or 2 tokens maybe summoning sick. Although my opponent pointed to the pyromancer acknowledging the trigger, shortcutting with when to put in tokens into play can lead to backtracking to when spells were played and how they were sequenced. I know the Geist example is much simpler, but I think it is the same logic that allows one player to avoid putting the angel token into play, which also allows another player to take their time to put in pyromancer tokens and chalk it up to "short cutting".

  13. #53
    Hamburglar Hlelpler
    TsumiBand's Avatar
    Join Date

    Aug 2005
    Location

    Nebraska
    Posts

    2,774

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

    You will almost certainly never be rules-lawyered for actually putting the Angel token into play.

    No I am not talking about anticipating Stifles or Time Stops or whatever - it is about as useful to think of corner-cases for as it is against, and I'm not going to do that rabbit-hole crapulence. Assuming all things are equal, you would never be faulted by a judge for actually putting the Angel token into play.
    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.

  14. #54
    The green Ancestral
    ESG's Avatar
    Join Date

    Mar 2010
    Location

    Seattle, WA
    Posts

    1,308

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

    Quote Originally Posted by cdr View Post
    A five word response doesn't convey much information. If you don't expect your opponent to interact at all during combat, you could maybe squint and see "attack for 6" as out-of-order sequencing. Riki's post above seems to indicate he has a very expansive interpretation of out-of-order sequencing, and I don't entirely agree. But Toby/Riki are judge leadership and I'm not a judge, so take that for whatever it's worth.
    You should be a judge. I would think your expansive rules knowledge would qualify you in a heartbeat.

  15. #55
    Site Contributor
    apple713's Avatar
    Join Date

    Jan 2012
    Location

    Manhattan, NY
    Posts

    2,086

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ESG View Post
    You should be a judge. I would think your expansive rules knowledge would qualify you in a heartbeat.
    He was, and probably still is. His expansive knowledge is the reason he moderates "Card Interactions and Rulings."
    Play 4 Card Blind!

    Currently Playing
    Legacy: Dark Depths
    EDH: 5-Color Hermit Druid

    Currently Brewing: [Deck] Sadistic Sacrament / Chalice NO Eldrazi

    why cards are so expensive...hoarders

  16. #56

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

    I was a judge for a long time, but I haven't judged for two or three years and my status is expired. Lack of time and the fact that as I get older working for a multimillion dollar corporation for sub-minimum wage isn't as attractive.
    “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

  17. #57
    Member

    Join Date

    Oct 2011
    Location

    Denmark
    Posts

    445

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

    Quote Originally Posted by apple713 View Post
    I am in the same boat as you Finn



    I tend to think of things as if they were happening on magic online where the rules are continuously enforced. If you get away with something in real life that would never have happened online, you are probably abusing the rules.

    1. Prime example. You intended to deceive this player as suggested by you calling to judge over to witness your cunning manipulation of the rules. You knew that the spell would be countered and put into the graveyard unless "my opponent lets me break the rules." You opted to test the boundaries and this though process should not be rewarded. Although it is permissible in paper magic, it shouldnt be. In online magic the trigger would have happened and he would have countered the spell like the card was intended to be played. It is especially sneaky and deceptive because you clearly understand the rules and should have never been able to get away with this. Chalice of the void is not a "conditional" counterspell.

    Furthermore, in my opinion, when the opponent acknowledged "ok" he was probably thinking "sure, it'll get countered i have no responses"


    3. you are nitpicking. you clearly understand the rules, and it is implied that the only possible target is the repeal. Looking back to the magic online example, It would have triggered and inevitably repeal would have been chosen.


    .
    So what you are saying is that magic online is real magic, paper isnt? In my opinion, magic online is set to resemble paper as best it can. Not the other way around.

    1. "Chalice is not a conditional counterspell" - well in fact it is. It only works when the controller announces the trigger. Just like w. young pyromancer.

    3. Im not nitpicking. I clearly noticed the opponent missing his trigger. He acknowledged himself that he forgot to call it. This wasnt a kitchen table or friday night event. This was competitive rules enforcement level play. I feel very comfortable that if these plays should not be legal for me to make, the rules would reflect that.
    "Brainstorm and Fetchlands are interesting although I don't know if Brainstorms alone are worth it right now, because Stifle is a common card. " -Peddi 2015.

  18. #58
    Site Contributor
    apple713's Avatar
    Join Date

    Jan 2012
    Location

    Manhattan, NY
    Posts

    2,086

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Phelix View Post
    So what you are saying is that magic online is real magic, paper isnt? In my opinion, magic online is set to resemble paper as best it can. Not the other way around.

    1. "Chalice is not a conditional counterspell" - well in fact it is. It only works when the controller announces the trigger. Just like w. young pyromancer.

    3. Im not nitpicking. I clearly noticed the opponent missing his trigger. He acknowledged himself that he forgot to call it. This wasnt a kitchen table or friday night event. This was competitive rules enforcement level play. I feel very comfortable that if these plays should not be legal for me to make, the rules would reflect that.
    Chalice of the void is not a conditional trigger. <-- is a fact you cannot argue. The text indicates that it always happens. However, the rules of paper magic may give it a conditional effect through "missing triggers" which is not an intended use of the card when it was created. The point i'm trying to make is that Online Magic FORCES you to play correctly, and not miss triggers or play out of order, i.e., play the game the way it was intended. Online magic only knows how to follow what the cards indicate, which is what plays SHOULD be doing but clearly don't because we are not perfect.

    Chalice of the void's effect is not a conditional counterspell. if that was the case it would be printed to say

    Chalice of the Void enters the battlefield with X charge counters on it.
    Whenever a player casts a spell with converted mana cost equal to the number of charge counters on Chalice of the Void, Chalice of the Void's controller MAY counter that spell.

    that additional text was INTENTIONALLY left off of the card because it would allow the owner to choose not to counter his own spells. However, your twisted situation and rules manipulation give chalice of the void the effect of having that text which is WRONG.

    This use of rules clearly isn't what the creators of magic intended when making the game. If you want to classify skill as based on knowledge and application of the rules, you should stop playing magic and go to law school. You'll make a hell of a lot more money and you'll apply "rules" every day.

    Skill is knowing when to save that counterspell for the more appropriate threat, or stifling a fetch land when you know the opponent really needs that land because the only run 15 lands. It's deciding whether to kill a death right shaman vs a tarmogoyf because over a few turns deathright shaman's damage can't be prevented and will ultimately kill you. <-- those are skills based decisions that the game of magic should be decided on.
    Play 4 Card Blind!

    Currently Playing
    Legacy: Dark Depths
    EDH: 5-Color Hermit Druid

    Currently Brewing: [Deck] Sadistic Sacrament / Chalice NO Eldrazi

    why cards are so expensive...hoarders

  19. #59

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

    Quote Originally Posted by apple713 View Post
    .
    OK, that's enough of that. It's off topic, and quite frankly you're also wrong - trigger policy has evolved over nearly 20 years to where it is today, and making players responsible for remembering their own triggers has been the most reasonable way of handling the fact that people forget stuff in real life. You can go back and find discussion of why making opponents responsible for other people's triggers is undesirable.
    “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

  20. #60

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

    By the way, judgecast covers the history (or the last 5 years anyway) of trigger policy this week, if you're interested.

    http://judgecast.com/?p=818
    “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

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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