[Article] What Next for Legacy: White is the New Blue

[Finn]

It has been a long time but I finally contributed another article, this time for an impressive site in my neck of the woods instead of MTGSalvation. You may want to check out the videos and other recent articles at SouthFloridaMagic.com.

http://southfloridamagic.com/archives/whats-next-for-legacy-white-is-the-new-blue

[catmint]

Nice Article. I hate to play against vial hatebear decks and I think they really are very skill intensive and require you to understand exactly what your opponent is trying to do. Are there really no other versions of this deck out there splashing Green black or blue for other hatebears and some spells?

[lyracian]

I was reading down the article wondering who Daniel Payne was, then I found out at the bottom it was you! :cool:

I have enjoyed seeing the deck develop over the years. I really enjoyed playing it with Cataclym; I understand though that decks need to evolve otherwise they will just die out (like Poison and Statis).

[lordofthepit]

Great article, with one exception:


You tap Mangara and take your time before tapping Karakas, never yielding priority. He just might waste a Lightning Bolt.

From my experiences with Storm, I'm pretty sure that if you're going to maintain priority, you have to say that right away or at least say something to the effect of "I'm thinking, not passing priority yet". My understanding that pausing to imply that you are passing priority, when in fact you haven't, is illegal.

With a weaker player, you can activate your Mangara, and he might waste a Bolt which gives you an opportunity to bounce him back with Karakas. But against a "nicer" strong player, you will be asked whether you are passing priority to clarify the game state; against a strong player who holds you to the rules and isn't afraid to call on the judge, he will argue that you have indeed passed priority.

[Finn]

Do you mean like with Lion's Eye Diamond? I can certainly see an opportunity for someone to blunder this kind of thing with a significant delay. But I do it routinely with enough subtlety that it is not a problem. Opponents who do not quite know how it works are the ones you are aiming for. You have to physically move Mangara off the table too unlike letting a storm spell resolve. That may be a difference.

I am not one for jedi tricks. But in this case it is fairly simple. You make a clear motion to tap Mangara, pause and do not look up, then follow through with Karakas. It should be just enough to give a hasty person enough time to do something. Anyone who does try to remove Mangara this way would have to understand what you are about to do, but not fully appreciate the sequence. I have never faced a judge ruling on this with maybe four successes in perhaps 20 tries. I would be really surprised to hear anyone say differently, but now I am interested in if I am testing my luck. Can anyone confirm what Lordofthepit is saying? CDR, are you reading this?

[Dresden]

Short answer - you have to explicitly say you are maintaining priority, else it passes automatically.

--somewhere in the MTR--
Whenever a player adds an object to the stack, he or she is assumed to be passing priority unless he or she explicitly announces that he or she intends to retain it. If he or she adds a group of objects to the stack without explicitly retaining priority and a player wishes to take an action at a point in the middle, the actions should be reversed up to that point.

[TsumiBand]

For my part the "jedi" aspect of this seems just about impossible to actually pull off, but then again I had priority passing pounded into my head from pretty early on (when I started playing it was pretty common for MBC to Mutilate the board and pump their Nantuko Shade in response, before passing, and I needed to know why that works).

I think this only works if APNAP is on your side. If you are NOT the active player(active player = player whose turn it is), and you put Mangara's ability on the stack, I don't think you have priority to play Karakas immediately afterwards. The game gives priority to the opponent, who has a chance to respond, then priority returns to you, and if neither player does anything then Mangara's ability resolves. So if I understand correctly, during another player's turn you'll actually pass priority and THEN play Karakas if that's your intended line of action. During your own turn, you do actually have to decide whether or not you're putting Karakas on the stack before you pass priority on Mangara's ability; if the opponent has no response, you'll not be able to decide after regaining priority that it's prudent to play Karakas' ability.

The upshot of this is that trying to "jedi" your opponent into trying to Swords/Bolt/Murder/etc your Mangara, it will play out differently depending on whose turn it is. During your turn you'll need to make it clear that you're activating Karakas before passing, during an opponent's turn you technically do not have the opportunity to play Karakas' ability before passing.

However I'm no judge, so if there's a hole in the bucket point it out to me.

[trivial_matters]

For my part the "jedi" aspect of this seems just about impossible to actually pull off, but then again I had priority passing pounded into my head from pretty early on (when I started playing it was pretty common for MBC to Mutilate the board and pump their Nantuko Shade in response, before passing, and I needed to know why that works).

I think this only works if APNAP is on your side. If you are NOT the active player(active player = player whose turn it is), and you put Mangara's ability on the stack, I don't think you have priority to play Karakas immediately afterwards. The game gives priority to the opponent, who has a chance to respond, then priority returns to you, and if neither player does anything then Mangara's ability resolves. So if I understand correctly, during another player's turn you'll actually pass priority and THEN play Karakas if that's your intended line of action. During your own turn, you do actually have to decide whether or not you're putting Karakas on the stack before you pass priority on Mangara's ability; if the opponent has no response, you'll not be able to decide after regaining priority that it's prudent to play Karakas' ability.

The upshot of this is that trying to "jedi" your opponent into trying to Swords/Bolt/Murder/etc your Mangara, it will play out differently depending on whose turn it is. During your turn you'll need to make it clear that you're activating Karakas before passing, during an opponent's turn you technically do not have the opportunity to play Karakas' ability before passing.

However I'm no judge, so if there's a hole in the bucket point it out to me.

It doesn't matter whose turn it is. If a player has priority and he plays a spell or activates an ability he still retains priority even if he isn't the active player.

When a spell or ability resolves the active player gets priority.

[from Cairo]

Opponents who do not quite know how it works are the ones you are aiming for. You have to physically move Mangara off the table too unlike letting a storm spell resolve. That may be a difference.

I am not one for jedi tricks. Anyone who does try to remove Mangara this way would have to understand what you are about to do, but not fully appreciate the sequence.

I appreciate what you're saying, but mind tricks seem unnecessary. I've played the Mangara Karakas interaction explicitly stating priority, and what? They expend removal? Mangara still got a 2 for 1 exiling their most relevant permanent and expending a removal spell, seems fine.

Especially now with Thalia the deck can have both legends on deck and Port down a removal color to bait removal and Karakas back whichever Legend is targeted, obviously activating Mangara given the opportunity. Just seems like this play opens one up to a bad judge call and is only valuable against player who don't understand priority. Marginal value.

Off the Mangara Karakas tricks topic. I really liked the title for the article, but was a bit let down by the lack of delving into the value the threats provide against the format. You touched on Flickerwisp a little, but not much was said about Revoker. I feel like those 7-8 slots (as well as Thalia, who's value is pretty explicit) are really what 'counter'/foil the format and make this White control deck the 'new Blue'.

Regardless awesome to see an article on the deck and props I really feel it's one of the better positioned decks facing the format.

[Finn]

Short answer - you have to explicitly say you are maintaining priority, else it passes automatically.

--somewhere in the MTR--
Whenever a player adds an object to the stack, he or she is assumed to be passing priority unless he or she explicitly announces that he or she intends to retain it. If he or she adds a group of objects to the stack without explicitly retaining priority and a player wishes to take an action at a point in the middle, the actions should be reversed up to that point.Priority passes to whom? [the opponent]...who does something? That is a fine scenario. The opponent is welcome to an action. You WANT that. But if an opponent claims that I am passing priority and yet he has no action to take, that is just silly. That is the difference between the storm scenario and this one, I think. Again, someone correct me if I am wrong.

[Kich867]

I'm really not a fan of the jedi mind tricks, it's on you as a person to be explicitly clear in what your intentions are. If someone wanted to swords it in response or something you simply tell them that you haven't passed priority and to wait a moment.

Getting them to burn removal on him is blatantly attempting to get around priority and seems pretty illegal.

It'd be similar to pausing after saying you're playing Infernal Tutor and then cracking LED with it on the stack. Those actions are in a chunk, you are putting them on the stack in an order of your choosing at the same time (given that your opponent has no opportunity to respond between them) and as such need to be stated all at once.

These sorts of things alongside the rampant belief that everyone is out to get you / people actually cheating at the game are amongst the things that disappoint me about competitive magic play. Every game of magic should be friendly and clear, if you're luring someone into a trap it should be within the rules of the game and you certainly shouldn't be taking advantage of people, there's no reason for it to not be like that.

On a more relevant note, I've played against Death and Taxes, I quite like it. It's an interesting deck and is for sure annoying as hell to play against. Rishadan Ports are -brutal- sometimes. Sometimes they kinda suck though.

[TsumiBand]

It doesn't matter whose turn it is. If a player has priority and he plays a spell or activates an ability he still retains priority even if he isn't the active player.

When a spell or ability resolves the active player gets priority.

Ah, right you are, rule 116.3c. It's even simpler than I let myself think, then.

Are there really a ton of players that don't understand how to respond to things at the Legacy level? It's not like, fuckin, putting Chains of Mephistopheles into play in response to Opportunity via Vedalken Orrery or anything. I'm not a *great* player by any means, but I know how to respond to stuff...?


Priority passes to whom? [the opponent]...who does something? That is a fine scenario. The opponent is welcome to an action. You WANT that. But if an opponent claims that I am passing priority and yet he has no action to take, that is just silly. That is the difference between the storm scenario and this one, I think. Again, someone correct me if I am wrong.

Yeah I'm sure you can't insist your opponent implicitly passed an empty stack. If your *opponent* tries to cast something, pass, then play stuff in response, that's crappy.

[lochlan]

I am not one for jedi tricks. But in this case it is fairly simple. You make a clear motion to tap Mangara, pause and do not look up, then follow through with Karakas.

I don't know where you guys are getting this stuff. The MTR is very explicit about this:

"Whenever a player adds an object to the stack, he or she is assumed to be passing priority unless he or she explicitly announces that he or she intends to retain it."

So there's no "pause and do not look up", if you do not say "I am retaining priority" then you are considered to be passing priority.

And, for the record, although I have absolutely no problem with "Jedi mind tricks" I find this particular scenario to be distasteful as well as probably cheating.


But if an opponent claims that I am passing priority and yet he has no action to take, that is just silly.

If you place something on the stack you and your opponent have to both pass priority to let it resolve. There is nothing silly about that.

While it's true that your opponent cannot ask for priority and then not do anything (MTR: "A player may not request priority and take no action with it."), that's not the scenario being described in this thread.

[Finn]

I'm familiar with this rule. Well to be honest, I am not in the habit of looking up rules. But I think we can all agree that it is how the game works. I don't think the discussion is about that rule though. Look at it this way.

If I tap Mangara, point to the target, and immediately tap Karakas without saying anything about retaining priority, is it at all reasonable for a judge to rule that I lost my chance to use Karakas this way because Mangara's ability had resolved?

The only difference between that scenario and the one I am recommending to players is to not be physically as fast in doing this. The actual pause is me slowly moving my hand to Karakas rather than quickly. The game is not meant to be one of hand speed. That is why the rules of priority exist in the first place.

But crap. If it is so unclear, I should have said it better.

EDIT: Also, by not rushing through the sequence you let Lands Wasteland his own Mishra preventing you from needing Karakas. A Reanimator opponent once responded with Recoil on his Terastodon, which I thought was cool.

[Hitman82]

I don't think anyone here is confused about what you're saying. However, it's pretty clear that, at best, you're misrepresenting game state and at worst, cheating. I don't know why you're talking about hand speed as if that's something. As the player with priority, the burden is on you to declare that you aren't passing it and have further effects before passing priority. After that, priority is passing to the other player at which time he can respond.

[trivial_matters]

I'm familiar with this rule. Well to be honest, I am not in the habit of looking up rules. But I think we can all agree that it is how the game works. I don't think the discussion is about that rule though. Look at it this way.

If I tap Mangara, point to the target, and immediately tap Karakas without saying anything about retaining priority, is it at all reasonable for a judge to rule that I lost my chance to use Karakas this way because Mangara's ability had resolved?

The only difference between that scenario and the one I am recommending to players is to not be physically as fast in doing this. The actual pause is me slowly moving my hand to Karakas rather than quickly. The game is not meant to be one of hand speed. That is why the rules of priority exist in the first place.

But crap. If it is so unclear, I should have said it better.

EDIT: Also, by not rushing through the sequence you let Lands Wasteland his own Mishra preventing you from needing Karakas. A Reanimator opponent once responded with Recoil on his Terastodon, which I thought was cool.

According to your "moving the hand slowly" trick, your opponent couldn't actually bolt Mangara or Waste his Factory because he doesn't have priority. What you're doing is trying to bait him into playing a spell/activating an ability when you still have priority (according to you, the rules say you have to announce you're retaining priority), which is impossible. If he doesn't do that, then you go ahead and tap Karakas.

That seems like cheating to me. And it only works on people who've never seen a Mangara/Karakas/Flickerwisp interaction before, hence most likely new players.

[Hopo]

If you want to retain priority, you have to state that, per rules of the game. Saying nothing while tapping things shouldn't usually be enough, and if your opponent calls a judge when you do that kind of shady stuff with or without intent of tricking newbies, it will most likely be ruled in your opponents favor.

You say that you are aware of the rules but according to your explanations, it doesn't look like that.

Like basically everywhere, communicating clearly is important in this game. What you are trying to do here is cut back on communication in order to gain some potential, shady edge. Doesn't sound too professional.

[lordofthepit]

I brought up the issue originally, but let's not toss the C-word around. To me, cheating implies knowing you're trying to get away with something illegal.

Most of the subtleties of Magic involve misrepresenting your position, your hand, etc. in a legal way. I'm sure Finn thought he was just pulling off a nice Jedi mind trick; otherwise, he wouldn't be discussing it in his article for everyone to brand him a cheater.

[xfxf]

I agree with the Jedi mind trick defense here. There are two ways you can go on about the same thing:

I'm tapping Mangaraholdonholdon-I'm retaining priority. Tap Karakas

or

I'm tapping Mangara..slight pause..Hold on, I'm retaining priority.. Tap Karakas.

That 1.5 second pause can make your opponent reveal a card by casting a spell even though you didn't pass priority, or "had enough time to say you were retaining priority" :) So it's shady, but I don't think it's outright cheating.

[Julian23]

It's cheating if it's meant to make your opponent think that he is free to play a spell. If I was to judge such a situation, I would be very close to ruling it as cheating if I had the feeling Player A was trying to gain information by not clearly stating he was keeping priority right away.

[xfxf]

But how do you differantiate a player who's just playing tight and taking a breath and just making sure that he's doing the things in the right order deliberately.

You can be perfectly honest and professional and just rush into saying that you're not passing the priority really fast thereby preventing your opponent making a mistake and not giving him the slightest window of "opportunity" to make a mistake. On the other hand you can play a perfectly legitimate game by playing somewhat tight and deliberate which creates a very slight window of opportunity for an inexperienced player to make a mistake.

I am not sure an experienced opponent in this situation would take it that I'm trying to cheat or trick him into casting a spell early. I think he would just think I'm inexperienced and just going over my line of play just to be sure. An inexperienced player would just cast the Lightning bolt in eagerness.

[Finn]

Cheating.
Misrepresenting the game state.

What an imagination.

I am not misrepresenting anything in either of the examples. In fact, I am not even representing anything. But some people in this conversation have promising careers as attorneys in the U.S. But seriously, you give me too much credit. I have neither the ability to pull off anything as nefarious as purposely misleading an opponent nor the desire to take my chances with such an enterprise.

Bilb_o has the idea.

In fact, I am maintaining priority in all examples that I gave. I am not trying to convince the opponent otherwise in any of these cases. I am merely giving him the opportunity to screw up due to him having less experience with these interactions than I have, which is of course the point of the article.

The Lightning Bolt case is the simplest and is as Bilb_o says - eagerness. And yes it only works with noobs. At no time am I yielding priority or trying to convince the opponent of that. I am simply taking a breath between sentences so as to not artificially remove an opportunity for him to make a mistake. That is smart play and nothing else. There is no subterfuge here.

Against Lands, when they Wasteland their own land so that they can Loam it back, it is a bit more complicated. The opponent is probably better and is thinking that he has a good play, which he does. He is anticipating your move and his own. But most opponents will not understand Mangara's wording and make a mistake. I am still not yielding priority unless the opponent wants to hand me something for free by quickly sacrificing his Wasteland as soon as I point to the target. I fully intend to complete the sequence, maintaining priority, and following through with Karakas. By literally making sure the opponent has time to reach for his Wasteland by moving my hand deliberately and thoughtfully I am simply preserving the existing opportunity for him to screw up. BTW, the result of their haste here is Mangara remaining in play, tapped, and Karakas untapped.

On the other hand, if I am a noob, I will rush through the sequence, thereby saving him from an impending mistake of his own making.

EDIT: ...or let me put it another way. If I am deliberate with my actions and my opponent screws up, should I stop him and say "Wait, look. You can do it better this way"?

[Julian23]

Nobody is talking about "playing tight". In fact, it's not even about what you do, but why you do it.

Pausing to make sure you're playing everything right is ok if you announce keeping priority within seconds.
Pausing to convey the feeling of having passed priority in order to gain an advantage isn't, even if you announce keeping priority within seconds.

Of course, this will hardly ever be punished in tournaments unless the judge knows that a player has a history of playing this way. I have to admit I've actually made my fair share of these semi-shady plays in the past myself.

[marax]

More importantly by making such a pause you run the risk that your opponent simply waits instead of doing anything and then calling the Judge and stating that you did not announce that you wish to keep priority. I ALWAYS call the judge when my opponents try to bait countermagic after casting Infernal tutor with LED on the table etc.

Otherwise I really liked the article but this "trick play" Finn mentioned will only serve you trouble against stronger (people who know the rules well) players.

[Kich867]

In fact, I am maintaining priority in all examples that I gave. I am not trying to convince the opponent otherwise in any of these cases. I am merely giving him the opportunity to screw up due to him having less experience with these interactions than I have, which is of course the point of the article.

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding something here but it's my understanding that if your opponent were to lightning bolt your mangara in response while you had intended to retain priority (IE: he immediately said "Bolt it in response" before you finished your sentence), you would simply retain priority and target Mangara with your karakas, bolt would go after that and Mangara would die regardless.

If your opponent has the opportunity to interrupt your line of play, you're saying it too slow, it's as simple as that. You're intentionally trying to get him to misplay by, in essence, responding to the fact that he has no response. You can get all semantical about it if you want, but the theory behind what your doing is just that.

I've been in this situation before quite often when playing Nic Fit, it's not hard to just hold your hand up to them or correct your opponent that they cannot respond to this action.

No matter how you slice it, that is incredibly schisty play. You either take the gamble and hope they have a bolt or some other spell for you to respond to with Karakas or you lose the Mangara, you can't just wait and see if they have a response and then "finish your sentence."

[xfxf]

If the opponent immediately says "Bolt in response!", I'm not going to say "Oh, but my good sir, see technically since I didn't declare I passed priority your play is illegal therefore even though I saw a card in your hand which I shouldn't have seen, until the invisible command counter of the MtG rules processor iterates to the next step of the loop your play won't take effect". I will just say "learn the rules, learn the stack, tap Karakas in response, Mangara lives".

Have you guys wathced Stephen Menendian's feature match with his Lab Maniac-Doomsday deck against Maverick? The situation is this. He has Lab Maniac in play, just 0 card left in his library and 2 draw effects available to him. His opponent has two Swords to Plowshares in hand an Stephen knows this due to a prior Probe. So technically there's no way for Stephen to win this. If he triggers the draw effects his opponent will respond with removal and he will lose. So he just pulls the same mind trick, pauses for a moment and his opponent casts Swords, he attempts to draw, opp. casts second Swords, he attempts the second draw and wins the game.

I remember this play being talked about back when it happened but there were no arguments for foul play. It was argued that this was just outplaying your opponent. I can paste the video link if anybody wants it.

[Dresden]

Guys, just read this:
http://rules.wizards.com/rulebook.aspx?game=Magic&category=Tournament%20Policy

4.2. Tournament Shortcuts. It's the third bullet point.

I'm no legacy whiz but I've played my share of combo decks that necessitate not passing priority, so I have to state from personal painful experience that if you don't explicitly state that you are maintaining priority, opponent responds and judge comes over, you will likely lose because it's in the MTR.

Edit: Btw, Finn's situation is not the same as Mendenian's. I didn't watch the match but from what the scenario described, Mendenian HAD to pass priority in order to give the opponent a chance to cast STP so he of course said nothing and priority passed to his opponent by default.

[xfxf]

I can't access the Wizards site from my network currently but if it's indeed precisely the rules I then believe that I'd be for the update of the rules related to priority. When you are passing a turn you don't notify your opponent that you are keeping the turn during the discard phase. You just notify them that you've finished your turn and now passing it. You know, everybody asks before untapping and drawing a card "are you done?", because there are sometimes some misunderstandings. I think that a player shouldn't be required to say "holdonholdonWAIT! don't show me what's in your hand I'm not finished!". You should be required to say, I'm now passing priority. And opponents should be required to follow the game state and confirm that their opponents are indeed finished before taking priority and casting spells. This is my understanding of how a turn based game should be played but if the current rules says otherwise I think an update would only be fair.

[Kich867]

If the opponent immediately says "Bolt in response!", I'm not going to say "Oh, but my good sir, see technically since I didn't declare I passed priority your play is illegal therefore even though I saw a card in your hand which I shouldn't have seen, until the invisible command counter of the MtG rules processor iterates to the next step of the loop your play won't take effect". I will just say "learn the rules, learn the stack, tap Karakas in response, Mangara lives".

Have guys wathced Stephen Menendian's feature match with his Lab Maniac-Doomsday deck agains Maverick? The situation is this. He has Lab Maniac in play, just 0 card left in his library and 2 draw effects available to him. His opponent has two Swords to Plowshares in hand an Stephen knows this due to a prior Probe. So technically there's no way for Stephen to win this. If he triggers the draw effects his opponent will respond with removal and he will lose. So he just pulls the same mind trick, pauses for a moment and his opponent casts Swords, he attempts to draw, opp. casts second Swords he attempts the second draw and wins the game.

I remember this play being talked about back when it happened but there were no arguments for foul play. It was argued that this was just outplaying your opponent. I can paste the video link if anybody wants it.

I mean maybe I wasn't explicitly clear when I said "if your opponent interrupts you before you can say that you're retaining priority, you're saying it too slow." You can be all douchey about it and try to turn what I said into some quasi-pre-revolutionary-war-era monologue, but it's very clear--when retaining priority all of that shit goes on the stack at once (if they're instants). If you want to flood the stack with more than one ability, you have to be clear about this, here's a simple example: "While retaining priority, I am going to put Mangara's ability on the stack and then Karakas him."

And what does the little story in the middle have anything to do with anything, it's fundamentally impossible for him to not win unless that was told wrong. The opponent has 2 swords, he has 2 draw effects that -have- to be instants because he has 0 cards in library and presumably the opponent needs to sword it on his upkeep at the latest to win. Under what circumstance does priority even come into play there? Would you not just wait for your opponent to try and sword the Lab Maniac, then put your first draw on the stack, they sword it in response, then put the second and win? I feel like a few important details were left out of that.

[TsumiBand]

Guys, just read this:
http://rules.wizards.com/rulebook.aspx?game=Magic&category=Tournament%20Policy

4.2. Tournament Shortcuts. It's the third bullet point.

I'm no legacy whiz but I've played my share of combo decks that necessitate not passing priority, so I have to state from personal painful experience that if you don't explicitly state that you are maintaining priority, opponent responds and judge comes over, you will likely lose because it's in the MTR.

Edit: Btw, Finn's situation is not the same as Mendenian's. I didn't watch the match but from what the scenario described, Mendenian HAD to pass priority in order to give the opponent a chance to cast STP so he of course said nothing and priority passed to his opponent by default.

I'm glad for this post and really this whole thread, for a lot of the rules I've had to revisit. For my part it's good to know that I'm not just being a prick by overexplaining what I intend to do on the stack. I do also appreciate having it cleared up that passing priority immediately after receiving it again from playing a spell or ability (a) has nothing to do with APNAP (b) is actually implicit. I've always been of the mind to say something like, "I'll play Ability A, and before I pass priority, I'll also be playing Spell B (and so on), and then I'll pass priority to you" or something quite similar. It just seems nice.

People are so accustomed to shortcutting that it's a damn shame. I'm not talking about guys that just draw-go, that's a clear difference between someone who is just jonesing to play their cards and someone who genuinely has no game actions for their turn and will implicitly pass all their priority down to the endstep. I can't even play MWS or similar "non-MTGO" apps anymore, because everyone on there just wants games to play out as quickly and expediently as possible and they're just sitting around waiting for their chance to click on stuff. It's not Diablo, douche, it's a complicated and very much *not* a real-time game, and stuff like this matters more than your ability to make a game of Magic last < 90 seconds.

[xfxf]

You can be all douchey about it and try to turn what I said into some quasi-pre-revolutionary-war-era monologue

Kich867, thank you very much. I'll take it as a compliment because I'm not a native speaker and if I was able to pull out a quasi-pre-revolutionary-war-era monologue succesfully I'm happy with my lingustic skills :)

But more on to the point. What do you think about my comments about the requirement of "declaring to pertaining priority" vs. the requirement of "declaring to passing priority". Don't you think that in turn based games players should only be required to declare the end of their actions/turns officially? Since there are no automatic controls in place like computer games to enforce the turn/priority structure the clearest indication should be each player declaring the steps they have completed imo. I understand if the current rules state differently and I ofcourse abide by them in a tournament but don't you think this arguments warrants some consideration from a fundemental point of view?

[Kich867]

Kich867, thank you very much. I'll take it as a compliment because I'm not a native speaker and if I was able to pull out a quasi-pre-revolutionary-war-era monologue succesfully I'm happy with my lingustic skills :)

But more on to the point. What do you think about my comments about the requirement of "declaring to pertaining priority" vs. the requirement of "declaring to passing priority". Don't you think that in turn based games players should only be required to declare the end of their actions/turns officially? Since there are no automatic controls in place like computer games to enforce the turn/priority structure the clearest indication should be each player declaring the steps they have completed imo. I understand if the current rules state differently and I ofcourse abide by them in a tournament but don't you think this arguments warrants some consideration from a fundemental point of view?

I don't think it's necessary. For most general magic plays, you play something and ask if they have a response, asking if they have a response is the same thing as saying "I'm passing priority."

In reality you pass priority through a lot of different phrases, "Does it resolve?" "Is this good?" "Ok?" whenever you ask a question to someone after you do something you've passed priority to them because you're giving them permission to do something if they want to or are asking for their permission for this to happen without a response.

Retaining priority is much more rare and needs to be explicitly stated because you specifically aren't letting them have a response and you need to tell them that they can't because otherwise the ability just resolves or they can respond to it. In D&T's case, a Mangara / Karakas interaction in which retaining priority isn't stated immediately or if there's somehow a confusion about whether you are retaining priority or not, I would for sure say that Mangara gets exiled and Karakas cannot target him.

Overeager players should be taught about priority, not punished for not knowing about it. I don't really understand the very common attitude I find in magic players where they're all these tough guys who like to punish people for not knowing the very complicated and very in-depth rules of magic.

Maybe I'm just not enough of an asshole, but I enjoy it when I get to teach a player about priority and explain to them how it works and then get to see them think about how they can use priority in their own deck to better their play. I'm not a fan of the faux-macho "Crush the weak" mentality.

[xfxf]

Overeager players should be taught about priority, not punished for not knowing about it. I don't really understand the very common attitude I find in magic players where they're all these tough guys who like to punish people for not knowing the very complicated and very in-depth rules of magic.


On the contrary. I am thinking from the perspective of a rules illiterate. Consider the noob playing D&T and the noob is just learning about playing spells on a stack.

N: So I tap Mangara..Hm..
Opp: I cast Bolt, Mangara dies.
N: But wait, I'm not finished I was going to bounce it back!
Opp: Tough luck buddy, you were supposed to say you were holding priority.
N: Yeah, I was going to, I was just trying to figure out whether I would need Karakas for.. I was thinking, it was my turn!
Opp: Sorry you gotta be fast

This doesn't make sense at all does it? It's always a better defense when you can just say "hold on, I didn't say I was finished". That's why I think that the focus should be on a player confirming that he/she is finished. It can be in a question form like "does it resolve?" or it can be simply "go, your play".

Actually I had one of these noob moments when I first picked up High Tide. My opponent casts Snapcaster and there is a Hymn in his graveyard. He puts it on the table and waits for my response. I now have the priority. I in response cast Cunning Wish to fetch Surgical, but then I get confused for a moment. I'm not sure if I can cast back to back spells and remove the Hymn and I consider wherher this is legal and if that's the correct play... But there is some considerable pause until I finally cast the surgical. My opponent waits patiently because he is aware that by remaining silent I'm not implying to pass priority but actually reconsidering my line of play before announcing it.

This to me seems the most friendly (so to speak) way to resolve the turn structure imo. Until I explicitly pass it to the opponent it should be mine.

P.S. I'm not much of an asshole player, I was just trying to be funny and cynical in my above posts but later realized that this topic is indeed very curious and a more matter of fact tone is better suited.

[Julian23]

N: So I tap Mangara..Hm..
Opp: I cast Bolt, Mangara dies.
N: But wait, I'm not finished I was going to bounce it back!
Opp: Tough luck buddy, you were supposed to say you were holding priority.
N: Yeah, I was going to, I was just trying to figure out whether I would need Karakas for.. I was thinking, it was my turn!
Opp: Sorry you gotta be fast

This doesn't make sense at all does it? It's always a better defense when you can just say "hold on, I didn't say I was finished".

Makes perfect sense. Going "hmm.." directly after casting a spell/activating an ability implies having retained priority. It's not the clearest way, but just trying to "overrule" your opponent's "hmm" by grabbing priority is just as shady as trying to abuse a short pause after casting a spell.


Actually I had one of these noob moments when I first picked up High Tide. My opponent casts Snapcaster and there is a Hymn in his graveyard. He puts it on the table and waits for my response. I now have the priority. I in response cast Cunning Wish to fetch Surgical. [...] But there is some considerable pause until I finally cast the surgical. My opponent waits patiently because he is aware that by remaining silent I'm not implying to pass priority.

You can't use this example because it's different from what we are discussing. In this case, there's no point after resolving Cunning Wish where you would be assumed to pass priority by remaining silent for some time. He can't resolve his Snapcaster Mage's ability without you explicitly stating that you are passing priority.

Activating abilitites/playing spells and retaining priority is different from this because it's assumed that you immediately pass priority afterwards. You did so after casting Cunning Wish. This does however not mean that you also passed priority with SCM's ability as the top object of the stack.


This to me seems the most friendly (so to speak) way to resolve the turn structure imo. Until I explicitly pass it to the opponent it should be mine.

By "explicitly" you mean verbally. Non-verbal passing of communication is the standard right now with just "looking at your opponent" being the most common. I like it the way it is as you can always shift into adding "ok?" should the gamestate require more explicit communication.

[Kich867]

On the contrary. I am thinking from the perspective of a rules illiterate. Consider the noob playing D&T and the noob is just learning about playing spells on a stack.

N: So I tap Mangara..Hm..
Opp: I cast Bolt, Mangara dies.
N: But wait, I'm not finished I was going to bounce it back!
Opp: Tough luck buddy, you were supposed to say you were holding priority.
N: Yeah, I was going to, I was just trying to figure out whether I would need Karakas for.. I was thinking, it was my turn!
Opp: Sorry you gotta be fast

This only does not make sense because Mangara does not die here. Not even by a long shot. This is a rare case where you are either a fucking terrible player or a god-damn master. You are either not announcing priority because you didn't know about it and the bolt targets Mangara, you get to bounce it to your hand or you very purposely threw your Mangara at them knowing that they -have- to bolt it and in response to the bolt you bounce it to your hand.

Either scenario, Mangara lives. You can always respond to the bolt (unless they retain priority and put something else on the stack but, they probably wouldn't).

But going along with your example, here's what should happen:

If your opponent is simply too slow to state that they are retaining priority and you attempt to Bolt the Mangara when their intention is to retain priority you simply call a judge and explain to them that when you had played your bolt, it was not stated that your opponent was retaining priority and it goes from there.

Don't misunderstand me, I get what you're all talking about: your opponent is hasty and interrupts you before you can finish and you simply go with the flow. There's nothing wrong with that, because that happens, but when (as described here) you do it intentionally to see if that will happen, there is something very wrong. Just play the fucking game.

[xfxf]

I disagree and I still think that in a turn based game you should be indicating the stages that you complete rather than the stages you are continuing.

When you are playing Magic in a computer, and Magic is designed much like the inner workings of a computer as things can't be really run in parallel, you click on the necessary button to advance the gamestate. In live Magic I think it should simulate the same dynamic and and the only indicator which matters should be you stating the completion of actions. That's the logic behind a turn based game. If you put the focus on declaring to hold priority there is no clear and universal description of how fast or when a user should declare that he/she holds priority. Then it becomes a discussion of "but you said hmm..", yeah but he waited a couple seconds, no but he interrupted me. Turn based structure works to prevent these time based conflicts and race conditions.

[Dresden]

bilb_o, you make some good points but to be perfectly clear, you are talking about the way you 'think' the rules 'should' be. We are talking about the way the rules 'are'. Any discussion on whether the rules should be changed probably belongs in its own thread. I personally think the rules are just fine the way they are, it would slow down gameplay if people had to priority check very frequently. Everybody should know their decks and if they have interactions that require priority, then they should announce it when playing them.

For the purposes of this discussion and this specific interaction, the rules are clear - in a tournament, you HAVE to announce you are maintaining priority or else you are passing by default, and everybody is welcome to ask a judge to confirm.

P.S. In your above example:
N: Yeah, I was going to, I was just trying to figure out whether I would need Karakas for.. I was thinking, it was my turn!
Opp: Sorry you gotta be fast <- this is wrong and is a straw man argument since this reasoning is obviously false. The correct response is along the lines of "Sorry, you need to announce maintaining priority or else it passes to me automatically as stated in the MTR. Feel free to call and judge and check"

[xfxf]

But it then still doesn't give me a justifiable and measurable time slot to announce which is required by the rules so it can always lead to such polemics like you were supposed to announce according to the rule xy..., I was announcing but you cut me off, did not, did too. It creates a race condition which shouldn't exist in a linear turn based game such as Magic. I'd be happy to carry the discussion over to a different thread and see if maybe some judges or other players would agree with me that an update in the rules could make sense for the game dynamics.

[Julian23]

Turn based structure works to prevent these time based conflicts and race conditions.

I know what you mean. However, there's no "race" or "being faster". There's a very practical and universally accepted way of stating that you are keeping priority - stating it right after casting a spell. Even if you state it like some seconds after casting the spell, that's still fast enough. You opponent will never be able to "beat you to it" by just immediately slamming a spell. If it takes you even longer, you should have thought about you play more thoroughly beforehand.

Also, in case of unclear communication by both players, I feel judges are very likely to allow you to keep priority. Unless there's suspicion that someone tried to pull a Finn ( :wink: ).


As I said, I know what you mean. I know what you want and it makes perfect sense. The reason I still argue against it is because I think such a system's very little merits aren't worth the loss of no longer being able to pass priority non-verbally - which in turn slows down the game by at least a bit.

[Dresden]

If priority is at all relevant for you, simply say, "Maintaining priority, I do X". This way there's 0 chance for any dissension and no race condition.


But it then still doesn't give me a justifiable and measurable time slot to announce which is required by the rules so it can always lead to such polemics like you were supposed to announce according to the rule xy..., I was announcing but you cut me off, did not, did too. It creates a race condition which shouldn't exist in a linear turn based game such as Magic. I'd be happy to carry the discussion over to a different thread and see if maybe some judges or other players would agree with me that an update in the rules could make sense for the game dynamics.

[Kich867]

But it then still doesn't give me a justifiable and measurable time slot to announce which is required by the rules so it can always lead to such polemics like you were supposed to announce according to the rule xy..., I was announcing but you cut me off, did not, did too. It creates a race condition which shouldn't exist in a linear turn based game such as Magic. I'd be happy to carry the discussion over to a different thread and see if maybe some judges or other players would agree with me that an update in the rules could make sense for the game dynamics.

What measurable time slot? Is beforehand or immediately not quite good enough? In what world does the fantasy situation you described ever actually happen. The worst I've seen is someone flipping shit because he didn't know what priority was and was pissed he couldn't respond between.

The problem with this situation is that you're trying to maneuver around one of the only situations where not maintaining priority is beneficial and it relies on unknown information. To me the problem is that this situation is being described as a tactic, not as a turn of events. Intentionally doing this is bad, but sometimes it just happens and that's fine. That's the only real point I have. In most cases you want to state you're maintaining priority because it's objectively beneficial to do so. For instance, in Nic Fit, a common line of play is: "Cabal therapy naming X, retaining priority after it resolves, flashing it back sacrificing veteran explorer." You don't want to let the person "slip up" and swords your dude because you're working with a sorcery.

However I've never once encountered a situation in which my intentions were mistaken or it was not understood that I was retaining priority. It's not terribly difficult to just say it. When you want to do a bunch of shit at once, you tell it to people in a single chunk of information. Think about the play, then do it.

[lyracian]

If priority is at all relevant for you, simply say, "Maintaining priority, I do X". This way there's 0 chance for any dissension and no race condition.However priority is not all that is relevant. It is all about trying to win with Jedi Mind Tricks against weaker opponents. It is wrong but not the worst offence I have seen. I recall one of the SCG articles talking about how he flashed in Vendillion Clique when his oppoents library was empty and just smiled. His opponent said "well done" and picked up his cards without realising he would draw the same card that was picked.


Also, in case of unclear communication by both players, I feel judges are very likely to allow you to keep priority. Unless there's suspicion that someone tried to pull a Finn ( :wink: ).I think you have started a new MTG Catchphrase.

[Julian23]

For instance, in Nic Fit, a common line of play is: "Cabal therapy naming X, retaining priority after it resolves, flashing it back sacrificing veteran explorer." You don't want to let the person "slip up" and swords your dude because you're working with a sorcery.

And even in this situation, there isn't even need to announce that you want to maintain priority after it resolves. There's no automatic passing of priority after a spell resolves. Otherwise, I completly agree.

[Koby]

For instance, in Nic Fit, a common line of play is: "Cabal therapy naming X, retaining priority after it resolves, flashing it back sacrificing veteran explorer." You don't want to let the person "slip up" and swords your dude because you're working with a sorcery.

From a rules perspective, this is not necessary. As the active player, once the stack is clear, you immediately gain priority. This would allow the Nic-Fit player to cast Cabal Therapy, allow it to resolve, then flash it back without having to say "retain priority". The key point is that the AP would gain priority after the Stack is emptied.

RE: Jedi Mind Tricks - the one described in the article is not one of those. It's just sloppy play (from both players) and unclear communication between players.

[Kich867]

From a rules perspective, this is not necessary. As the active player, once the stack is clear, you immediately gain priority. This would allow the Nic-Fit player to cast Cabal Therapy, allow it to resolve, then flash it back without having to say "retain priority". The key point is that the AP would gain priority after the Stack is emptied.

RE: Jedi Mind Tricks - the one described in the article is not one of those. It's just sloppy play (from both players) and unclear communication between players.

Ah thanks!! I feel like that's something that I knew but never really thought about in that context haha. Noted.

[Ignithas_]

I play DnT and I asked a judge about this. He said, that he isn't happy about this interaction, but it is allowed when you don't take too much time.
His reasoning behind this was the following:
There are two possible situations:
1) I play Mangara, after 3 seconds he plays his Bolt and I respond with my Karakas. I didn't say that I retained priority, so it's completely correct.
2) I play Mangara, look at him for 3 seconds and then I tap Karakas. Now the enemy calls for the judge and infact it is a grey zone, but he said he would let it through because the three seconds are reasonalbe for the persons to think. But he also said that he would feel better when you say after the three seconds that you mentain priority, because so he can argue, that the first sentance of the rule wasn't broken, because you said it after playing.

[alderon666]

I got a shady similar example.

I have Infernal Tutor and Pyroblast in hand, LED in play and Past in Flames in the grave. I cast Infernal Tutor and "pause".

My opponent could be a noob and try to counter it. I Pyroblast his counter and win.
My opponent could think I'm tutoring for a second Cabal Ritual and try to counter it. I Pyroblast his counter and win.
My opponent could cast Brainstorm to dig for a counter. I Pyroblast his counter and win.

What should happen: opponent forces you to get a second Pyroblast.

[lochlan]

1) I play Mangara, after 3 seconds he plays his Bolt and I respond with my Karakas. I didn't say that I retained priority, so it's completely correct.

If you play Managra and it resolves, you now have priority again. Your opponent does not have an opportunity to play Lightning Bolt like you're describing.

If you mean to say "activate Managra's ability" than you are correct, you passed priority and your opponent is making a very obvious mistake.


2) I play Mangara, look at him for 3 seconds and then I tap Karakas.

Mangara is on the stack and you're tapping Karakas? That doesn't make any sense.

If you mean to say "activate Managra's ability" then you are passing priority when you look at him for three seconds. You have to say "I am retaining priority" if you want to retain priority. There really isn't any grey area, the MTR is very clear about this. If a floor judge rules in your favor, your opponent can simply call a head judge who will ask you both how you were communicating the passing of priority earlier in the game and then will likely overrule the floor judge.


I cast Infernal Tutor and "pause".

This isn't a "shady example", this is you passing priority after you cast Infernal Tutor with an LED on board and your opponent responding. Note that after your opponent is finished responding you regain priority with the tutor on the stack and you have an opportunity to crack LED. If your opponent thought you were making a mistake by not cracking LED then the correct play is to say "OK", passing priority back to you, and now IT has resolved.

Seriously, guys, there is no ambiguity here. I doubt any of you have actually tried this stuff in a large tournament.

[alderon666]

This isn't a "shady example", this is you passing priority after you cast Infernal Tutor with an LED on board and your opponent responding. Note that after your opponent is finished responding you regain priority with the tutor on the stack and you have an opportunity to crack LED. If your opponent thought you were making a mistake by not cracking LED then the correct play is to say "OK", passing priority back to you, and now IT has resolved.

Seriously, guys, there is no ambiguity here. I doubt any of you have actually tried this stuff in a large tournament.

I aggree. I'm saying it's the same thing as tapping the Mangara and pausing. And I can say that happens more often than Mangara tricks, people are just trigger happy with their counters. I have "pulled" this "trick" even when not trying because people couldn't wait for me to announce the sacrifice of LED "in response" to Infernal Tutor.

I just don't think it's something you should be trying to actively do. I'd rather work on my deckbuilding and play skills than take part in those shady "mind tricks".

[Julian23]

Right now I've called people out on their Infernal Tutor / Lion's Eye Diamond "tricky" plays three times. Three times it was ruled in my favor because my opponent tried some whicky-whacky blabla trying to talk himself out.

The bast part is that I did it fucking twice in a match at GP Ghent. Hilarious. Just had to get this out there before cleaning up the kitchen. :laugh:

[Koby]

The best way is to confirm they are passing priority to you. Then you just let it resolve normally and they're boned. Gotta love tournament procedures that hold people accountable for playing badly.

[lordofthepit]

I got a shady similar example.

I have Infernal Tutor and Pyroblast in hand, LED in play and Past in Flames in the grave. I cast Infernal Tutor and "pause".

My opponent could be a noob and try to counter it. I Pyroblast his counter and win.
My opponent could think I'm tutoring for a second Cabal Ritual and try to counter it. I Pyroblast his counter and win.
My opponent could cast Brainstorm to dig for a counter. I Pyroblast his counter and win.

What should happen: opponent forces you to get a second Pyroblast.


Seriously, guys, there is no ambiguity here. I doubt any of you have actually tried this stuff in a large tournament.

IIRC from a previous tournament report, Bryant Cook has done exactly this. The difference was that if his opponent realized that he shouldn't counter the Tutor when priority was given to him, Bryant would have been forced to grab a second Pyroblast. There's no ambiguous "maybe I pass priority, maybe I don't, depending on how you respond" situation here.

If you pause and do not specifically mention that you're maintaining priority, then Mangara and the targeted permanent should be removed from the game.

[xfxf]

Julian23, I understand your reasoning but allow me to quote you on this one thing to try to explain my perspective on turn based structure a little more.


Even if you state it like some seconds after casting the spell, that's still fast enough.

These are relative descriptions of time and in a turn based game should have no relevance. Magic is a very linearly and clearly structured game. Turns are divided into sub phases and what follows what is clearly defined. Back when Instants, Interrupts and creature abilities had their own different timing rules and when you factored in the order the players played each of these in response to the other, it kind of confused things since the game was working on discrete set of actions except these real time Instant/Interrupt battles. To put these actions into an order and bring them back into the flow of the turn based structure the concepts of Stack and Priority have been integrated into the game.

The stack and priority concepts are following the exact turn based structure of the game however in a micro level. The progression of these phases are very linear and clearly defined like the flow of a software (and the concepts of stacks, priority etc. are also used in computer science to order a discrete set of actions. This is also why I mention the race condition term, not because you actually race to say you're holding priority). In such a framework there is no room for relative terms like "some" and "enough" and "fast". If you give these set of instructions to a computer it wouldn't be able to follow it. The computer example is relevant because how do you think Magic Online processes the rules of the game? Since it is very linearly defined, every time you click OK after an action the game state progresses to the next iteration defined by the rules.

The only phase (as far as I know) in the game where you have to (apparently) state that you are not letting the game state iterate is the "retaining priority" and it doesn't follow suit with how the rest of game's core functions run. It's only natural that since Priority and the Stack is used to organize player actions into manageable queues like the whole turn structure, it makes sense to continue the iteration of micro phases with the approval of the active player just like the iteration of macro phases (declaring attack phase!).

All the discussion is stemming from this ambiguity of real time actions (you should say you hold it!) in a turn based structure. The resolution of mind games' or little tricks' discussions then depend on the comment of individual judges based on personal interactions. If the rules instead stated that "until active player passes priority, priority is pertained" the question would have been simple. Did he pass priority? No he just waited.. So play is invalid, you take back your play and the mind trick is invalidated.

I understand that this could also lead to some difficulties in face to face play. But I don't see it becoming harder than communicating passing of turns or advancing between phases. I also don't think that such a change would punish the new and noobish players. On the contrary I think that this change would lead to new players learning priority and stack better. How? This way:

If people start confirming passing priority in these tricky plays more, than people would do shortcuts which kind of confuse new players less. As it becomes easier to follow the order of things going on, this priority and stack concept wouldn't look like a whole different concept on a different level for new players. They would be able to understand it for what it is - as the micro version of the whole turn back and forths.

At this point I'm not defending this to make a case for Finn's mind game. I just got convinced that it is glaringly obvious that the implementation of passing/pertaining priority actions should be the dictated just like everything else in the game, not the other way around. I don't play Magic Online and just watched people's videos on YouTube so I'd be glad if someone could chip in on how the pertaining of priority is implemented on the computer. Do you just confirm to pass it, or do you get asked whether you wish to pertain it? If you get asked at what stage are you prompted?

[alderon666]

On Magic Online whenever you play a spell or ability, you pass priority immediately unless you hold a certain key (CRTL or ALT, don't recall) while making your action.


I've called people on the LED/Infernal Tutor thingy too. But in my case the player actually thought he could wait for my reaction before choosing wheter he breaks LED or not while Infernal was on the stack.

[Julian23]

tl;dr for the most part right now, but regarding Magic Online, you have to state that you want keep priority while casting the spell. Otherwise it's getting passed automatically. It's even more harsh than offline because if you forget to do so, there's no "...and I keep priority" after you realized your mistake.

[Koby]

116.3b. The active player receives priority after a spell or ability (other than a mana ability) resolves.

116.3c. If a player has priority when he or she casts a spell, activates an ability, or takes a special action, that player receives priority afterward.

Please tell me which part of this section of the rules doesn't make sense?

An interjection (Lightning Bolt on Mangara in this example) is simply a player rushing and giving away free information when they don't have priority. The play is rewound until the game-state is restored. No harm here except information freely revealed.

The mind-trick can be to play a spell like Infernal Tutor, implying that cracking LED could be used, but choosing not to make that play. As lordofthepit mentioned above, the intent is to deceive the line of play for strategic reasons, not for fraud or ruleslawyer.

Playing a game of "do you know the rules?" doesn't sound fun nor exciting to me. I've frequently passed on activating (creature) abilities because of how they interact with removal. For instance, not activating Scavenging Ooze until I have more mana sufficient to pump it out of Bolt range in one turn. Testing an opponent's knowledge of Priority is fine if you're 100% clear on what happens (Judge may need to be called over if someone is un-sure). Misrepresenting the game-state to gain the advantage is a quick way to earn a Warning/worse from the judge however.

[anwei]

The real Jedi Mind Trick here, for the opponent of the D+T/Storm player, is to immediately act like they're considering the removal/counter so that if D+T/Storm guy wants to exploit game-state ambiguity, he's drawn into lengthening his "pause" and missing any chance to argue that he hadn't intended to pass priority...

[xfxf]

Please tell me which part of this section of the rules doesn't make sense?

I was arguing about this:
Whenever a player adds an object to the stack, he or she is assumed to be passing priority unless he or she explicitly announces that he or she intends to retain it. If he or she adds a group of objects to the stack without explicitly retaining priority and a player wishes to take an action at a point in the middle, the actions should be reversed up to that point. (4.2 Tournament Shortcuts)

In the comprehensive rules it clearly says that priority is defaulted back to the active player after each spell he resolves but the tournament treatment seems otherwise.

[Julian23]

In the comprehensive rules it clearly says that priority is defaulted back to the active player after each spell he resolves but the tournament treatment seems otherwise.

No. Please direct us to the part of the rules where you think it says otherwise.
There's no difference between the Comprehensive Rules and "tournament play": whenever something is fully resolved, the active player receives priority and gets to keep it without having to state it.

Note that priority works different after a) Playing something / b) Resolving something.

[alderon666]

No. Please direct us to the part of the rules where you think it says otherwise.
There's no difference between the Comprehensive Rules and "tournament play": whenever something is fully resolved, the active player receives priority and gets to keep it without having to state it.

Note that priority works different after a) Playing something / b) Resolving something.

DCI Tournament Policy (http://rules.wizards.com/rulebook.aspx?numbers=true&rulenameonly=true&game=Magic&category=Tournament+Policy&q=4.2)

Third bullet point. Seems fairly straightforward to me, doing what the OP described is just fishing for free stuff.

[Kich867]

I was arguing about this:
Whenever a player adds an object to the stack, he or she is assumed to be passing priority unless he or she explicitly announces that he or she intends to retain it. If he or she adds a group of objects to the stack without explicitly retaining priority and a player wishes to take an action at a point in the middle, the actions should be reversed up to that point. (4.2 Tournament Shortcuts)

In the comprehensive rules it clearly says that priority is defaulted back to the active player after each spell he resolves but the tournament treatment seems otherwise.

Can you give an example of that ever happening? That doesn't pertain to the conversation at hand.

[Koby]

DCI Tournament Policy (http://rules.wizards.com/rulebook.aspx?numbers=true&rulenameonly=true&game=Magic&category=Tournament+Policy&q=4.2)

Third bullet point. Seems fairly straightforward to me, doing what the OP described is just fishing for free stuff.

This is a good catch. I don't think the two documents are meant to contradict. I'll pass this up to people higher on the Judge chain.

[alderon666]

One describes game rules, the other one describes acceptable tournament shortcuts. In theory you can't point a Lightning Bolt at a planeswalker. But it's a commonly used shortcut that is described in that document.

[Julian23]

DCI Tournament Policy (http://rules.wizards.com/rulebook.aspx?numbers=true&rulenameonly=true&game=Magic&category=Tournament+Policy&q=4.2)

Third bullet point. Seems fairly straightforward to me, doing what the OP described is just fishing for free stuff.

That's what bilb_o was referring to. However, that doesn't explain why he thinks there was a contradiction between comprehensive and tournament rules. Thus far, theres zero contradiction.

I strongly feel, he's confusing how priority works after casting or resolving a spell, which is totally different.

When you cast a spell, priority is passed by default unless you state otherwise.
When you resolve a spell, priority is not passed by default.

[xfxf]

What I'm getting stuck at is a very minute point to be honest. It's just that when the expected behaviour is a player telling that he pertains priority before or right after the plays a spell it leads to such discussion like did he wait to long, was he thinking, was he pulling a shady mind game. If the assumption would be just that until a player states that he passes priority it is defaulted to him pertaining it, I think there wouldn't be any grounds fo gray areas such as described in this discussion. But it is a very minute point and I'm already losing interest in it, I think I'm not at IBA levels yet and can burn myself out in a debate :smile:

Edit: Julian23 you are right in the clarification about casting and playing. I think the point which creates the problem is when you play the spell.

[Finn]

Third bullet point. Seems fairly straightforward to me, doing what the OP described is just fishing for free stuff.Well, yeah. I do not think anyone is debating this. I am certainly not. The salient point that I wished to get across since this discussion began was the idea that the opportunity for freebies only ever exists if the opponent gives it to you. Something I should have mentioned (I really can't believe I have not said this yet) is that most players using Mangara this way use the phrase "with the ability on the stack" when speaking to players who appear to be unfamiliar with it. I know that I do this as standard practice.
Whenever a player adds an object to the stack, he or she is assumed to be passing priority unless he or she explicitly announces that he or she intends to retain it. If he or she adds a group of objects to the stack without explicitly retaining priority and a player wishes to take an action at a point in the middle, the actions should be reversed up to that point.This shortcut is a real problem for that practice though. I presume that passing priority as a standard shortcut is designed to give players a fair opportunity to respond to stuff on the stack. We are talking about basically a side effect of that rule though. It does not really seem designed to handle this situation because it basically demands that you order your plays differently than they happen "I do this then that" must be "I do that then this", which is terribly unnatural. If you don't do things this way you have technically removed your opportunity to respond to the stack by default. I am guessing that this is bilb_o's issue. More importantly, from the tournament shortcuts section of the rules:

A player may interrupt a tournament shortcut by explaining how he or she is deviating from it or at which point in the middle he or she wishes to take an action. A player may interrupt their own shortcut in this manner. A player is not allowed to use a previously undeclared tournament shortcut, or to modify an in-use tournament shortcut without announcing the modification, in order to create ambiguity in the game. I was unaware of this rule. While nothing that I am advocating actively tries to purposely create ambiguity, it certainly does it passively by not adhering strictly to these guidelines. Taking these two rules together, I can certainly see the opportunity for a learned opponent to try to force the stack (even if the D+T player has no intention of fishing). While it seems unlikely that a judge would rule in the opponent's favor (keeping the judging policy of clear intention in mind) any delay tapping Karakas even with the verbal mention of clear intention to retain priority while tapping it fuels the opponent's position even though it is now him who is looking for a freebie. With that in mind, I am not only going to reverse my position, I am going to give a more detailed description of the timing rules with a warning to be extra careful. At higher REL tournaments, it is unwise to make any effort to get the Lightning Bolt freebie.

Thanks, folks. It is a rare thing indeed for something this contested on this site to go on this long in a civil manner. It has been educational for me.