As a L1 Judge, I really don't like this change. I fear this could lead to a lot more "feel bad" moments than application of the previous penalty, and I'm not convinced by the article's reasoning that this kind of meddling by the IPG with the in-game situation will be well-received.Originally Posted by Barook
I'm pretty sure the Chapin situation at the last PT had something to do with it.
I second the feel-bads, this is one of those things where I can tell there's potential for abuse but I'm not quite smart enough to figure it out independently. Like... "oops I drew an extra card, I'm going to let my opponent see my hand and toss my best card, precisely because for whatever reason I needed it back in my deck". I have no idea how or when this is good, but when it is good it is an option that exists to all players and is stupid.
Obviously you can't Warning your way through a tournament without being found out, but like any Jedi Mind Trick people claim is "legal but sketchy" it exists, and it will occur in this way, and there will be feel-bads and people thinking they stole the key to the city, and yeah. I think I prefer the Game Loss.
I am not a judge, but I feel the same way.
There is to much chance to F over your opponent if he accidentally draws an extra card, in allot of cases it will end up feeling worse than a game loss, as your opponent tells you to put back the card you need to win, and you then have to fight the up-hill battle hoping to draw it again, and slowly loose, as you opponent play around the rest of your hand.
Handling of drawing extra cards should be determined based on 2 factors :
- Was it deliberate or accidental.
- Can we identify the extra card(s) drawn, or all the card(s) that were drawn.
the card(s) that go back should be random, not chosen by your opponent.
Brainstorm/shuffle, without the fetchland? "Hmm these cards are awful, better draw another. OOPS. Silly me"
This seems really awkward letting the other player get involved in the fix like this. I think this is a huge step backwards.
I don't know how I feel about this change...a less harsh way to resolve a dec is fine imo, but this new ruling "feels bad".
Just for curiosity, how this scenary should be resolved? (Between player A and B)
Player A has a some mana , a fetchland and a sensei divining top...he fetch
Player B cast Wear targeting Sensei divining top
Player A then switch the top card with top and before the fetch resolve, he cast brainstorm
Player B cast spell pierce (player A can't pay)
Player A cast another brainstorm
The brainstorm resolve, spell pierce resolve and a brainstorm get countered, then for error player A resolve the countered brainstorm and the judge is called (this situation happened to me but I stopped before adding the 3 cards form the brainstorm to my hand)
A possible way to abuse it with SDT in play:
Cards in hand suck?
Top 3 cards suck?
No way to shuffle?
Draw extra cards and shuffle library!
Losing a game due to accidentally drawing a card always felt horrible (happened to me at a Modern Premier IQ once), but allowing people to have free shuffle effects could be potentially dangerous as well. I don't like either answer, to be honest.
It's standard procedure that, if a library must be shuffled to try to fix a gamestate, any cards that were previously known (for example, as a result of scrying) are not shuffled and are put back where they were before. So my understanding is that what would happen under that situation would be that the "known" cards on top of the library would be separated from the library, the library would be shuffled, and then those cards would be put back on top. It would have been nice if this was clarified in the article, though.
Trade a desperate needed shuffle in a top 8 Elimination for a warning sounds fine. No more Brainstorm locks! Just draw an extra card the next upkeep! Woooo! /sarcasm
www.theepicstorm.com - Your Source for The Epic Storm - Articles, Reports, Decktech and more!
Join us at Facebook!
Nice, a rule that actually makes Brainstorm better by cheating and getting away with it.
Kagu-Tsuchi カグツチ (Jund NicFit)
Rhino's Abbondanza (Junk NicFit)
4c Aggro Loam
Doesn't actully work that way, a Judge Shuffle sets aside the non-random cards first (cards you know from top for example) then randomizes the rest.
The top of your deck isn't random, so two of the bad cards will stay there.
Additionally, it's still a warning. All judges will know this ruling is prone to abuse, so if you accumulate two of these warnings, the judges will make a note that it might be deliberate abuse. This is a cheat, punishable by disqualification and a suspension of some time. Are you sure you want to risk that?
So (known) drawn cards go on top of the deck instead of being shuffled?
Edit: What I meant was, that the opponent chooses one (or more) cards and these cards are put on top of the library instead of being shuffled?
From the comments in the judge article, it sounds like if both players know about the extra card drawn it can just be put back where it goes, but in the case of one player knowing and one not, it would shuffle. So in the SDT case, you spin it EoT, then on your turn if you draw an extra card the top card of your deck which is known stays there, and your opponent shuffles 1 card from your hand into your deck, in effect letting you see 2 new cards with top. I am not a judge though, so I might be misreading the ruling.
I have problems with this rule change, but not because of the potential for abuse (which does exist and is something to be concerned about.)
What I have a problem with, is that the cards shuffled back in should be chosen at random. Letting your a the other player choose, has player choices coming into play when correcting game play errors. This seems like a questionable road to go down IMO.
So we have to remember the order of Terminused creatures, and tops of libraries. This while thing is fucking idiotic. This only applies at competitive+ at that level where cheating has been fucking rampant just make it a game loss. We've all presumably paid $25+ to play, it's competitive. This is another tool in the box of the legions of people cheating at this game, sneaking an extra card now has far less risk, and possible other side benefits. The in game solution is especially great when your opponent is a bad player and is likely to make a sub-optimal choice, at that point you are just self-Cliquing and betting your donkey opponent won't pick the best card ... because why not? you get 3 warnings and nobody calls judges anyway.
There's absolutely nothing new about that. Every time you have to shuffle your deck due to a judge ruling under the current paradigm, they always say "do any of you know the location of any cards in the library?" and those cards are to be preserved in spite of the shuffling. It's just that judge-ordered shuffling is likely to be more common under the new rules, meaning it matters more often.
So.... Long Term Plans, Unexpectedly Absent, Insidious Dreams, Brainstorm... I assume these work more-or-less as described by the above scenario?
This feels cheatyfacey as fuck.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Reply With Quote