Is there no Grand Prix Paris coverage or what?

[feline]

I am at the official site, even googled it and there's nothing, it does/did start on Friday right?

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

It won't start for another ten hours. Don't know when they'll have the coverage up for it, but you can keep an eye on the hashtag (https://twitter.com/search?q=%23gpparis), I guess.

[Megadeus]

Shit what time zone is that even? I don't even Europe

[syfilisx]

Yeah. I guess they don't run coverage about Trials day that's happening today. It's like central european time +1

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=what+time+is+it+in+paris

[feline]

Ka Duh, it's not Saturday yet, ignore me, I'm dumb! ha ha.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

Well usually they do get the site up for the Grinders etc. the day before.

[Grand Superior]

Coverage supposedly starts 7:30am EST, which is great because I normally wake up early anyway.

I was bummed that SCG Somerset was cancelled this weekend but I forgot about the Grand Prix. Now I'm psyched.

[prateta]

Flive video coverage! Stream will start approx. 1:30 PM Local Time on Sat. http://www.Twitch.tv/Magic

[amalek0]

There's a problem with GP paris. No feline longmore to watch on stream =)

I'm a frequent lurker and fan of Solidarity, so spiral tide has to make do for my vicarious pleasure at SCG events =(

[Grand Superior]

1,586 players for Grand Prix Paris. Makes you really question why doesn't Wizards support Legacy more.

Hoping for some good Magic this morning.

[Lt. Quattro]

Coverage is up.

http://www.twitch.tv/magic

[Mr Miagi]

1,586 players for Grand Prix Paris. Makes you really question why doesn't Wizards support Legacy more.

Hoping for some good Magic this morning.

Iw ould be nice to see more support for legacy in form of one or two GPs more. But to be honest 1,6k players for Paris and legacy as a GP format is certainly not bad, but I really expected close to 2000 players :frown:

[Barook]

I like how we get seamless coverage instead of SCG's lazy "Well, we showed you one match and still have 25 minutes left for this round, let's call it a day!".

[Lemnear]

Disappointing standings after round 4. 4 pals already on tilt with 2-2 ... one managed to go 1-3 ... ouch

Titus Chalk 3-1! Woooooo! Go pal! Londoners can loose Wednesday xD
Julian Knab 2-1-1
Timo schüneman 3-1
Christian Eilers 2-2

[Zombie]

TIL that TNN is fine.

[Megadeus]

Havent seen much coverage. So far, the match ups aren't overly exciting

[Zombie]

It seems that every damn match has to contain TNN or Show and Tell.

[Megadeus]

It's Quite a snore fest

[Grand Superior]

I wanna see Spirit of the Labyrinth do some work. Also glad to see some ANT decks doing well.

[Zombie]

This commentary. Holy shit.
"I like taking Maverick into a meta full of True-Name Nemesis, Miracles and Show and Tell."

Now they're pretending Jund is a deck still.

[Barook]

This commentary. Holy shit.
"I like taking Maverick into a meta full of True-Name Nemesis, Miracles and Show and Tell."

Now they're pretending Jund is a deck still.
To be fair, Maverick has a decent match-up against S&T due to Karakas + KotR - not as good as D&T, but still decent.

[Lemnear]

SneakShow / Delver & TNN all over again ... after 7 rounds i'm inclined to fire up the B&R thread

[Megadeus]

Much Sneak and Show. Very Delver. Wow

[Lemnear]

Hope I'm mistaken, but did Panagiotis draw 2 cards off probe in Round 7? (Right after casting and a second time after taking notes)

Watched only with 1 eye ad I have dual streams running.

[Grand Superior]

I never thought I'd see this happen, but a Lands deck just beat a Storm deck.

[Rocco111]

Yep, crazy deck! Oo

[Lemnear]

I never thought I'd see this happen, but a Lands deck just beat a Storm deck.

Fuck, missed that game! Wtf happened?

[Anen]

Fuck, missed that game! Wtf happened?

Double Crop Rotation into Marit Lage x)

[Zombie]

Double Crop Rotation into Marit Lage happened.

[Lord Seth]

Them going through the common Legacy decks is kinda interesting, but I wish they'd display a sample deck list when going through these decks rather than just throwing up 3 card pictures. For someone unfamiliar with them, it'd be easier to know what they're talking about.

[lyracian]

Fuck, missed that game! Wtf happened?
BANT Lands playing Force of Will and crop rotation for Marit Lage combo. Won 2-1 but I only saw game 3 on camera.

[Grand Superior]

The first two games weren't shown, but the commentators said that in game 1 ANT did its thing and rolled Lands. Game 2, the lands player was able to Living Wish into Ethersworn Cannonist to which I'm assuming the Storm player had no outs to. Game 3 Storm mulls to 6 and yeah, double crop rotation into 20/20 legendary token.

[TsumiBand]

I dialed this up and listened while pulling some overtime at work, so I may have missed some plays here and there, but goddamn that's a lot of Delver.

I like how the one Maverick matchup was like… dude with a big-enough KotR and like 3-5 random assist creatures in play, and deTora's like "welp, all I ever have is this Delver and TNN. guess I attack vOv" and dude's like "welp, guess I StP my own 8/8 and still lose to 3 DPT". She didn't even give a fuck or like, just attack with the Delver to keep KotR at home; 3 damage a turn, every turn, that'll do pig. "That's right opponent, Swords your own mans, cool Fog. I'll just untap and swing again? Zat cool? U ded bro?"

After I spent bunches of time whining so damn much about why TNN is so better than every White protection knight and being biasedly pissed about it because White Weenie is my pet deck for life so of course I'd rather see it be a 2/2 for 1WW I really wanted to try and not have a predisposition to TNN's showing anywhere as having such a slimming effect on the format - like it was just the result of the metagame trying to meta the metagame, right? But I felt like that was just silly. It's probably a fairly common story, I haven't really watched a lot of Magic online lately TBH.

He never had a ton of land but he sure had a lot of Safekeepers. Was he feeding the land to SS a lot? MdT seemed to always have a ton of Wasteland in play but no targets.

[Lemnear]

The first two games weren't shown, but the commentators said that in game 1 ANT did its thing and rolled Lands. Game 2, the lands player was able to Living Wish into Ethersworn Cannonist to which I'm assuming the Storm player had no outs to. Game 3 Storm mulls to 6 and yeah, double crop rotation into 20/20 legendary token.

Maybe a bit gross, but if you can't goldfish by turn 3 with storm, you should question your playstyle

[Lord Seth]

Maybe a bit gross, but if you can't goldfish by turn 3 with storm, you should question your playstyle
I'd have to rewatch it again to be sure, but I believe they said something about Exploration being involved, meaning they might have gotten the Ethersworn Canonist out on turn 2 (as 4 lands is enough for Living Wish+Ethersworn Canonist)

[Barook]

Oh boy, I sure love Delver&TNN.format!

We're really in dire need of Sulfur Elemental for blue.

[Lord Seth]

Was the Dryad Arbor in play when he cast Supreme Verdict? If so, it shouldn't it have been destroyed?

[Lemnear]

Was the Dryad Arbor in play when he cast Supreme Verdict? If so, it shouldn't it have been destroyed?

Did not see that, but if that was the case, it should have been. Not the only shady thing I have seen/heared off today...



I'd have to rewatch it again to be sure, but I believe they said something about Exploration being involved, meaning they might have gotten the Ethersworn Canonist out on turn 2 (as 4 lands is enough for Living Wish+Ethersworn Canonist)

That should at least help to navigate a Cabal Therapy. That is a 6-card combo (4 lands, exploration and Wish). It is not a problem to loose a game due to bad beats, but a whole match is crazy

[Megadeus]

I mean he was on ANT and seemed to have a heavy disruption hand (in game 3). Plus his opponent had Hardcast Force Mana on T3 thanks to exploration. It happens. Can't have the god hand everytime. Though this is indeed why TES > ANT imo.

[Zombie]

Yo, I heard you like TNN's in your tournament streams so we put more TNN onstream.

[Lemnear]

I mean he was on ANT and seemed to have a heavy disruption hand (in game 3). Plus his opponent had Hardcast Force Mana on T3 thanks to exploration. It happens. Can't have the god hand everytime. Though this is indeed why TES > ANT imo.

Tbh, I had never Lands in mind, but Maverick and D&T's ;D

[Darkenslight]

Main feature at the moment is Delver vs Delver. That is, RUg (it seems) vs. UWR.

EDIT: nope, one's just UR-Delver.

[Megadeus]

Ah yes. God damn Thalia decks are tough sometimes though. It creates awkward decisions of whether to keep a fine, but slow, hand or try to mull into speed (or into oblivion)

[Lemnear]

Ah yes. God damn Thalia decks are tough sometimes though. It creates awkward decisions of whether to keep a fine, but slow, hand or try to mull into speed (or into oblivion)

I prefered giving Thalia decks not a second turn before comboing as seen in my last report on Eternal Central *ShamelessAdvertising*

[twndomn]

I'm glad Miracle got some coverage and most likely more on Day 2. The deck tech showed some interesting choices by PV.

[MGB]

I'm glad Miracle got some coverage and most likely more on Day 2. The deck tech showed some interesting choices by PV.

Einherjer from the forums is undefeated with the deck on Day 1

[Megadeus]

I prefered giving Thalia decks not a second turn before comboing as seen in my last report on Eternal Central *ShamelessAdvertising*

That is fair. Not saying you are wrong. Hence why I like TES over ANT. Fairly certain I would have done much better with it had I played tighter at SCG Nashville. I shouldve beaten the guy playing BW Deadguy who top 16'd in round 1, I just mis sequenced my plays when I could have Ad Nauseam'd from like 16 life with a land drop to make.

[Barook]

Einherjer from the forums is undefeated with the deck on Day 1
Looks like he wasn't just "all talk" in his thread with his version of Sneak & Show.

[Megadeus]

Anyone else fromt he Source there? I think I heard Julian on Elves was out

[Einherjer]

9-0 without Byes as of now.... Miracles was my deck of choice, ofc :)

Greetings

[klaus]

Looks like he wasn't just "all talk" in his thread with his version of Sneak & Show.
Is he really rocking this awkward list?
http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?27518-Crushing-GP-Paris

EDIT:
ninja'd deluxe, and two thumbs up. bring it home boy!

[YamiJoey]

I died. 5-3-1. Should've been 6-3, should've played better. Whatever. Sideboard cards mained and it all fell apart. I had a Sneak player who T1'd S/T into D-Sphere, then T2'd S/T into Humility. Life was hilarious. Back tomorrow for some side events. Might play Legacy.

[Julian23]

6-2-1'ed, heartbreaking. What can I say, Turn1 Seismic Assault >> Elves and I'm out. Also should probably have won that drawn match but opponent didn't want to concede, which was very well within his right.

Lost in the finals of a Trial on Friday, so I only had 1 Bye.

R1: *BYE*
R2: GWb Hatebears w/ Zealous Persecution, 1-1-1 Draw
R3: Esperblade, 2-0 W
R4: Lands with Seismic Assault, 0-2 L
R5: Miracles, 2-0 W (<- I just keep surfing :cool: )
R6: Junk Hexmages, 2-0 W (I had the sickest of reads; will tell later or on stream)
R7: Esperblade, 0-2 L
R8: Death and Taxes, 2-0 W
R9: Shardless BUG, 2-0 W

But guys, honestly - thank you so much for saying "hi" and getting to know you. Also shoutouts to the three guys that had me sign their cards and especially my Greek friend (sorry man, what was your name again?) that wanted me to sign his entire deck. I don't feel I deserve it but it made me feel way more special than I really am.

Too bad I started out 2-1-1. They actually asked me for a feature match later + deck tech but resigned from that once I lost my first match :wink:

Can't win it all they say. Good luck to everyone playing tomorrow, especially all the awesome guys and girls I ran into. Also shoutouts to MTGMadness (https://www.mtgmadness.com/) (and especially David!) for adding me to their team starting at this event!


BIG story time from this GP on my stream (http://twitch.tv/itsJulian) on Wednesday or Thursday. Promise!
Lieutenant of Llanowar, over and out!

[testing32]

9-0 without Byes as of now.... Miracles was my deck of choice, ofc :)

Greetings

Prove me wrong. gl tomorrow.

[Megadeus]

So what's with miracles suddenly becoming good again? Is it because everyone is attempting to jam a 3/1 do nothing man?

[Valtrix]

Miracles has been good for a long time. Generally people don't have enough practice to consistently do well with it though, since games will be long and small misplays can create very serious problems. Then, having to play at that level over a long tournament can be pretty mentally taxing. I think one of the reasons it's positioned to do well is that few people are playing real ways to generate card advantage, instead opting for tempo or combo plays. If you're the control deck and can stop those lines of plays, then you have the late game that other decks simply have no answer to. Plus Entreat is a pretty nutty "Oops I win button" in way more circumstances than you would expect.

[dunk]

So what's with miracles suddenly becoming good again? Is it because everyone is attempting to jam a 3/1 do nothing man?

It's been top tier since the printing of Miracle, never really went off the radar. Personally though, and I guess a lot of people share that opinion since they don't play the deck, topping every turn is just not what I want to do. Annoying to play with and to play against.

[Barook]

When do they return to stream?

[Julian23]

Miracles has actually been one of the very best ever since. It's just, it hasn't seen a lot of play in the US/on SCG. When I look back at Germany, it's been in the top3 decks over here for 2 years.

[Darkenslight]

When do they return to stream?

12 CET, from the looks of things.

EDIT: or not. Round 11 is live.

[dunk]

I love how Maxime Gilles runs 2 red blasts maindeck. Who doesn't play blue in Legacy?

[Whippoorwill]

Looks like he wasn't just "all talk" in his thread with his version of Sneak & Show.

Pretty sure he was trying to persuade people to play Sneak & Show since it's a really good match for Miracles. (Which would make for easy wins for him)

Keep kicking ass at the GP, Einherjar!

[Deviruchi]

Lejay on the stream!

[lordofthepit]

What a swingy game 1 between Lejay and Omar Rohner. Legacy is awesome.

[lyracian]

What a swingy game 1 between Lejay and Omar Rohner. Legacy is awesome.
Poor Merfolk losing to Bridge twice. He really should not have Imaged TNN.

[Nihilis]

Pretty sure he was trying to persuade people to play Sneak & Show since it's a really good match for Miracles. (Which would make for easy wins for him)

Keep kicking ass at the GP, Einherjar!

And yet, Maxime Gilles (currently 13-0) only just commented that Sneak & Show is one of the two decks he did not wish to face during the tournament (the other being Reanimator).

[Deviruchi]

Lejay in the top8. YES!

[Barook]

Lejay in the top8. YES!
Who of the qualified people is Lejay? And what does he run?

[BVB09]

3 Spanish players on top 8!! Come on guys!!! :D

[SirTylerGalt]

Who of the qualified people is Lejay? And what does he run?

Lejay = Jean-Mary Accart. He's very well known in France (built OmniTell and popularized Shardless BUG). He's playing Boros Painter in the main event.

[Grand Superior]

Well, PV is in the top 8 after the 7th seed in the top 8 was disqualified for some altercations in Round 13.

Looks like three Miracles decks, one Reanimator, one Imperial Painter, and some number of Team America in the top 8? I'm not sure what the last few decks are.

[lyracian]

They just DQ'ed #7 (no idea why) so the 9 placed player scrapes into the Top 8!

#Ninjaed!

[SirTylerGalt]

It's a little weird that they waited until the top 8 was announced to DQ the spanish player. His round 15 opponent must be pissed. I guess they wanted PVDDR in the top 8.

Time to buy a few CB / Top / EtA / Terminus before their price increases :)

[Lemnear]

Fishy DQ ... called AFTER the round and screwing the round 15 opponent to push PVDDR into the top8

[Lt. Quattro]

Fishy DQ ... called AFTER the round and screwing the round 15 opponent to push PVDDR into the top8

I'm grateful that the guy was DQ'd, can you imagine if this was a scg event?

[testing32]

Did a single copy of TNN make top 8?

[Esper3k]

That's a pretty late DQ. Anyone have more details on what it was about?

[Lemnear]

I'm grateful that the guy was DQ'd, can you imagine if this was a scg event?

Tbh, I don't even know for sure what happened, so I don't make a judgement here, but the fact that not his Round 15 opponent gets 3 points (after the incident happend in HIS round), but a Pro gets a free top 8 spot is questionable

[Zombie]

Brainstorm: The Top8

[lyracian]

For anyone that does not check the Mothership...



•
Sunday, 3:22 p.m. – Overheard at the Grand Prix

by Tobi Henke






"Want to counter my Show and Tell?"
"I think I should, but I can't. So ... What have you got?"
"Well, I had hopes of you countering. I don't actually have anything at all to put on the battlefield."


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


"Want to counter my Show and Tell?"
"Know what? I think I'd rather let that resolve."
"Well ... then I put Emrakul, the Aeons Torn onto the battlefield."
"What a coincidence! I have an Emrakul, the Aeons Torn as well."
"So, what now?"
"I untap, attack with my Emrakul, and you sacrifice six permanents, which probably includes your Emrakul. Tough luck."


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


"End of turn, I copy my Dark Depths with Thespian's Stage and create an indestructible 20/20 token?"
"Sure."
"Untap? Draw?"
"Sure."
"Attack you for 20?"
"Nah, you forgot to pay for The Tabernacle at Pendrell Vale you got lying around there, so you actually need to sacrifice your indestructible 20/20."

[workingdude]

For anyone that does not check the Mothership...

Just posted that on Salvation, and was gonna do that here. Feel bad if a guy gets his 20/20 gg'ed from this.

[SirTylerGalt]

I'm rooting for Javier. I played him in round 4 (where I got my first loss). He was really nice and a very good player. I liked how precise he was in his play, announcing each trigger, explaining exactly what he was doing with Sylvan Library, and so on.

He plays a Team America version which he tuned for the mirror match, replacing 2 Tombstalker with 2 Dark Confidant, and playing 3 FoW / 3 Liliana MD. I misread him, thinking he was playing Drew Levin's "Blue Jund", and got surprised when he started playing Delvers.

[Megadeus]

Just posted that on Salvation, and was gonna do that here. Feel bad if a guy gets his 20/20 gg'ed from this.

Awkward... Especially since Tabernacle is a destroy and not a Sac effect

[Lt. Quattro]

For anyone that does not check the Mothership...

The tabernacle destroys and the 20/20 is indestructible right?

[KobeBryan]

For anyone that does not check the Mothership...

THe tabernacle says destroy...how do you destroy an indestructible.

[Barook]

Awkward... Especially since Tabernacle is a destroy and not a Sac effect
This.

The Tabernacle at Pendrell Vale

Clear case of RTFC. Now the question what happened afterwards. Is that the opponent trying to mislead a player with false rules?

[lyracian]

Top 8 Decklists are up -

http://www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/eventcoverage/gppar14/welcome#3


Did a single copy of TNN make top 8?
5 TNN's over two decks.

[workingdude]

This.

The Tabernacle at Pendrell Vale

Clear case of RTFC. Now the question what happened afterwards. Is that the opponent trying to mislead a player with false rules?

RTFC is hard with these older cards and, I would guess, at international tournaments. Also Tabernacle at Pendrell Vale was previously oracled as a sacrifice effect, and within the last few years was changed back to its original keyword (even after the printing of Magus of the Tabernacle), but I have to assume that the tabernacle owner knew what his 400$ card did.

[Einherjer]

Top4 atm..

[MGB]

Top4 atm..

Nice scarf!

Almost as fancy as your alt-art deck :P

[Lt. Quattro]

Top4 atm..

Git Er Done!!

[Zllig]

I sure hope they stream the Miracles mirror, way more interesting than Team America vs Reanimator.

[Grand Superior]

I sure hope they stream the Miracles mirror, way more interesting than Team America vs Reanimator.

Oh, they're going to stream it. Hell, they could probably stream the entire Team America vs. Reanimator match and we'd miss maybe half of the first game of the Miracles match.

[SirTylerGalt]

If Javier dazes the Reanimate, isn't Loic forced to exile one of his own permanents when Ashen Rider enters the battlefield? (since Javier has no permanent in play)

[Zombie]

If Javier dazes the Reanimate, isn't Loic forced to exile one of his own permanents when Ashen Rider enters the battlefield? (since Javier has no permanent in play)

Yup.

[Esper3k]

Sounds like Einherjer in the finals!

[Whippoorwill]

Sounds like Einherjer in the finals!

Nope, he lost in the Miracles mirror. Great run though, congrats on making top 4 Einherjar!

[Zllig]

Sounds like Einherjer in the finals!

Nooo, Einherjer is Phillip. It was an excellent run for him, really showing people how good Miracles is. It's shame he got paired against the maindeck Red Blasts version.

[Grand Superior]

It's a little ironic, then, because he was promoting maindeck red blasts in his "Crushing GP Paris" thread on this site.

Still, congrats to him! Great run.

[Esper3k]

Doh!

Great run still!

[Lemnear]

Official statement to the DQ of the Top 8 Player (http://wizards.com/magic/magazine/article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/eventcoverage/gppar14/welcome#4)

[mini1337s]

Official statement to the DQ of the Top 8 Player (http://wizards.com/magic/magazine/article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/eventcoverage/gppar14/welcome#4)
If you don't mind posting the statement, it would be appreciated. Work computers block the mothership :(

[lyracian]

If you don't mind posting the statement, it would be appreciated. Work computers block the mothership :(



Sunday, 7:40 p.m. – Top 8 Disqualification

by Tobi Henke

There was quite a bit of excitement surrounding the announcement of the Top 8 at this Grand Prix when Gerardo Jurado Gibert, wo was poised to enter the playoffs with a score of 13-2, was instead disqualified from the tournament. Jurado Gibert first caught the attention of judges in round 13 when he committed what appeared to be, at the time, a simple game play error.

"The situation in round 13 involved a couple of play mistakes to his advantage, which could have been an honest mistake or a malicious attempt to gain an unfair advantage. At that time, though the situation looked suspicious, I didn't feel I had enough evidence to determine that the mistake was malicious," head judge Riccardo Tessitori explained. "After discussing it further with my colleagues, I realized that I had underestimated some details of the conversation at the table and I determined that the most appropriate solution was to exclude the player from the tournament."

Since the investigation was only concluded after the end of the Swiss rounds, Jurado Gibert was removed from the final standings. As is the usual procedure in such cases, the player who had been in ninth place before the disqualification was allowed to enter the Top 8 in his stead.

[Lemnear]

If you don't mind posting the statement, it would be appreciated. Work computers block the mothership :(

Your wish shall be granted ;)



Top 8 Disqualification

There was quite a bit of excitement surrounding the announcement of the Top 8 at this Grand Prix when Gerardo Jurado Gibert, wo was poised to enter the playoffs with a score of 13-2, was instead disqualified from the tournament. Jurado Gibert first caught the attention of judges in round 13 when he committed what appeared to be, at the time, a simple game play error.

"The situation in round 13 involved a couple of play mistakes to his advantage, which could have been an honest mistake or a malicious attempt to gain an unfair advantage. At that time, though the situation looked suspicious, I didn't feel I had enough evidence to determine that the mistake was malicious," head judge Riccardo Tessitori explained. "After discussing it further with my colleagues, I realized that I had underestimated some details of the conversation at the table and I determined that the most appropriate solution was to exclude the player from the tournament."

Since the investigation was only concluded after the end of the Swiss rounds, Jurado Gibert was removed from the final standings. As is the usual procedure in such cases, the player who had been in ninth place before the disqualification was allowed to enter the Top 8 in his stead.



Edit: Damnit! Ninjas everywhere!

[Secretly.A.Bee]

Is there more to this? I want details of the infractions and the context of the situation.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

[mini1337s]

Thank you guys :)
Can't wait till I get home and have a chance to look over the coverage.

[Lemnear]

Is there more to this? I want details of the infractions and the context of the situation.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

I consider reviewing the stream to see if one or more of his matches were on camera to see myself

[Darkenslight]

Is there more to this? I want details of the infractions and the context of the situation.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

Overheard... (http://wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/eventcoverage/gppar14/day2#9)

[Lemnear]

Overheard... (http://wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/eventcoverage/gppar14/day2#9)

There is no evidence those case is linked to the Tabernacle misinformation which should have been punished as well

[Secretly.A.Bee]

What's the misinformation?

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

[Serbitar]

There is this 'flavor section' of the coverage about crazy plays being overheard by the reporter. The opponent of the Lands player claims that Marit Lage would have to be sacrificed due to the Lands player not paying for his own Tabernacle. But in fact Tabernacle is a destroy trigger and Marit Lage is indestructible. (But, as Lemnear said, there is no evidence this has anything to do with the DQ.)

[Lemnear]

There is this 'flavor section' of the coverage about crazy plays being overheard by the reporter. The opponent of the Lands player claims that Marit Lage would have to be sacrificed due to the Lands player not paying for his own Tabernacle. But in fact Tabernacle is a destroy trigger and Marit Lage is indestructible. (But, as Lemnear said, there is no evidence this has anything to do with the DQ.)

Exactly. There is not even a single hint that the player in question participated in that match.

[Secretly.A.Bee]

Wow, there was recently event coverage (late last yr/early this yr) that on-camera ruled differently, iirc. If I have TNN out and my opponent has Tabernacle, do I not have to pay the 1 then?

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

[Quantum]

The creature (and its owner) control each trigger and there's no targeted effect, so you would.

[nedleeds]

LOL @ "Grand Prix Paris 2014 - Top 5 Cards" report

https://www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Events.aspx?x=mtg/daily/eventcoverage/gppar14/welcome#8

Brainstorm gets 28 of 32 spots in the top eight. 14 of the top 16 had 4 Brainstorm. This is reached the point of absurdity. For the love of god unban some cards if you are going to allow Ancestral-lite to run free.

"In recent months, ___________ decks have been outperforming other decks in Legacy. This has caused the competitive format to become significantly less diverse. This has reached a point where the DCI concluded that it is appropriate to ban a card."

[Serbitar]

Wow, there was recently event coverage (late last yr/early this yr) that on-camera ruled differently, iirc. If I have TNN out and my opponent has Tabernacle, do I not have to pay the 1 then?


TNN is not indestructible, so Tabernacle destroys it if not paid for (just like Wrath of God would).

[Barook]

LOL @ "Grand Prix Paris 2014 - Top 5 Cards" report

https://www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Events.aspx?x=mtg/daily/eventcoverage/gppar14/welcome#8

Brainstorm gets 28 of 32 spots in the top eight. 14 of the top 16 had 4 Brainstorm. This is reached the point of absurdity. For the love of god unban some cards if you are going to allow Ancestral-lite to run free.
Including Top, but not Brainstorm which is used by 87,5% of both the Top 8/16, seems kinda ridiculous.

[Julian23]

The guy who got the DQ supposedly Lightning Bolted a 3/4 Tarmogoyf in a way that suggested it would die. His opponent actually put it into the graveyard and the guy didn't say a word. What was so fishy about it was that this was his only out.

[Lemnear]

The guy who got the DQ supposedly Lightning Bolted a 3/4 Tarmogoyf in a way that suggested it would die. His opponent actually put it into the graveyard and the guy didn't say a word. What was so fishy about it was that this was his only out.

I know what you mean. We had a similar case here with Nimble Mongoose, 6 cards in grave and a Golgari Charm (played by the Controller of the Mongoose) on the stack with the question in the room, if the Mongoose dies.

[lordofthepit]

The guy who got the DQ supposedly Lightning Bolted a 3/4 Tarmogoyf in a way that suggested it would die. His opponent actually put it into the graveyard and the guy didn't say a word. What was so fishy about it was that this was his only out.

Sounds like a well-deserved trip to the Dairy Queen in that case.

[Julian23]

It wasn't about that rule, where the card grows the Goyf during resolution. It was just plain and simple casting a Lightning Bolt against a creature with 4 power.

[Griselpuff]

I thought it had something to do with DRS.

[testing32]

LOL @ "Grand Prix Paris 2014 - Top 5 Cards" report

https://www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Events.aspx?x=mtg/daily/eventcoverage/gppar14/welcome#8

Brainstorm gets 28 of 32 spots in the top eight. 14 of the top 16 had 4 Brainstorm. This is reached the point of absurdity. For the love of god unban some cards if you are going to allow Ancestral-lite to run free.

"In recent months, ___________ decks have been outperforming other decks in Legacy. This has caused the competitive format to become significantly less diverse. This has reached a point where the DCI concluded that it is appropriate to ban a card."

I also found their "Top 5 Cards" list hillarious.

[lordofthepit]

LOL @ "Grand Prix Paris 2014 - Top 5 Cards" report

https://www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Events.aspx?x=mtg/daily/eventcoverage/gppar14/welcome#8

Brainstorm gets 28 of 32 spots in the top eight. 14 of the top 16 had 4 Brainstorm. This is reached the point of absurdity. For the love of god unban some cards if you are going to allow Ancestral-lite to run free.

"In recent months, ___________ decks have been outperforming other decks in Legacy. This has caused the competitive format to become significantly less diverse. This has reached a point where the DCI concluded that it is appropriate to ban a card."

Force of Will had 27 of 32 spots in the top 8 and 55 of 64 in the top 16.

I think people have pretty much accepted Force of Will, Brainstorm, Wasteland, Ponder, and duals/fetches as an inherent part of the format, and the top 5 card writeups simply reflect what's "new and interesting". Of course, this is pretty subjective, since I would argue that Delver of Secrets and Deathrite Shaman are also an indelible presence in the format as well.

[Valtrix]

I think the real issue here is that cards like wasteland, brainstorm, and force of will don't really define "types of decks." On the other hand, cards like delver, show and tell, true name nemesis, etc. tend more to define the types of decks you have to play against. Saying that "delver defines the format" gives a much different impression than "brainstorm defines the format." While brainstorm is certainly a fantastic card, it could fit in so many types of decks that you don't get a good sense of what the format is like. There are a lot of delver decks too, but generally decks with delver follow a similar strategy. This is why the top 5 cards were chosen as they were, in my opinion.

[davelin]

I think they also wanted to communicate that legacy is also being defined by recently designed cards as well as old.

[Megadeus]

Wasteland and Force of Will however are there to keep in check combo and greedy manabases (though DRS said fuck that do it anyway). Brainstorm doesn't necessarily do such a thing. It is simply a powerful draw spell. Also it had alternatives that have shown to be powerful enough for this format. Foil (instead of Force) and Ghost Quarter/Tectonic Edge (instead of wasteland) being the only options instead of the more powerful versions would significantly change how the format plays out. Brainstorm? I think the format would change, but not as drastically if one of these "checks" cards were to be banned for their ubiquity.

[Esper3k]

Poor SFM is probably sad she's not loved by WoTC anymore.

[twndomn]

That's a strange discussion.

In Vintage tournament, almost every deck runs Moxes and maybe Lotus. I don't hear people wanting to ban those. Why is FoW a discussion now?

Isn't FoW the separator between Modern and Legacy? Isn't Modern the format that relies on Ban list instead of FoW?

I don't understand the point of discussing this.

[Megadeus]

Implying cards should be banned in a format where only ante and dexterity cards will ever be banned....

No-one is seriously discussing the banning of force of will. We are talking about whether or not amount of play that a card sees is truly enough for a ban.

[Lord Seth]

That's a strange discussion.

In Vintage tournament, almost every deck runs Moxes and maybe Lotus. I don't hear people wanting to ban those. Why is FoW a discussion now?
Because Vintage is a format whose entire purpose is to be a place where cards are only restricted, not banned, for power level? (none of the banned cards are banned for power reasons)

This is kinda like saying "people in American football hold onto the ball all the time when running with it! I don't hear people complaining about that. So why do you have to dribble it in basketball?

[twndomn]

Because Vintage is a format whose entire purpose is to be a place where cards are only restricted, not banned, for power level? (none of the banned cards are banned for power reasons)

This is kinda like saying "people in American football hold onto the ball all the time when running with it! I don't hear people complaining about that. So why do you have to dribble it in basketball?

Your logic fails. Football and basketball are different Sports, even the shape of the ball is different.

Vintage, Legacy, and Modern are different Formats of the same CCG.

I still don't get why is there a point in discussing these cards. Instead of focusing on Brainstorm or FoW, people should look at Legacy the format. Is there anything in this format that people should be concerned? Just looking at Top 16, I see control, combo, and tempo decks. Some of them run FoW and brainstorm, some of them don't run any of those 8. I just don't see anything that people need to be concerned.

[Lord Seth]

Your logic fails. Football and basketball are different Sports, even the shape of the ball is different.

Vintage, Legacy, and Modern are different Formats of the same CCG.
It's an analogy. It's not an exact one-to-one.

And I notice you didn't respond to my more pertinent point, regarding how the whole point of Vintage is that card aren't banned for power level.

[Nielsie]

That's a strange discussion.

In Vintage tournament, almost every deck runs Moxes and maybe Lotus. I don't hear people wanting to ban those. Why is FoW a discussion now?

Isn't FoW the separator between Modern and Legacy? Isn't Modern the format that relies on Ban list instead of FoW?

I don't understand the point of discussing this.
Moxes and lotus are restricted, that is kind of the same thing as being banned in Legacy.

I guess FoW is a nescessary evil in Legacy, but in the end, FoW is actualy a bad card that generates card disadvantage. It only shines in keeping combo in check. I have seen decks being crushed after using 2 FoW because of the card disadvantage.

Now BS is a whole different can of worms. With the presence of TNN and people 'adapting' to it by joing TNN, anti-TNN or don't care decks, we are seeing the presence of BS only growing and growing. This IS starting to get ridiculous. Something in blue needs to be banned so it nerfs the color down. Adding more powerfull cards to the other colors will not happen or at least will not happen fast enough. My choice for a ban would still be TNN, that card was the trigger to make almost everyone play blue. But honestly I wouldn't mind a ban on BS either, this would nerf down all blue decks.

As a sidenote, banning TNN would be good to re-introduce decks that have been disappearing lately. Not always because of TNN but because of the hate against TNN: cards that kill an X/1 without targetting or doing damage. Many of these decks didn't play blue.

[lyracian]

The guy who got the DQ supposedly Lightning Bolted a 3/4 Tarmogoyf in a way that suggested it would die. His opponent actually put it into the graveyard and the guy didn't say a word. What was so fishy about it was that this was his only out.

If you watch the day 2 stream at 7h 40m Rich Hagan announced that Gerardo Gibert was DQ'ed for events involving Deathrite Shaman and opponents losing life when this life loss should not have happened. www.twitch.tv/magic/b/503812813

[LOurs]

If you watch the day 2 stream at 7h 40m Rich Hagan announced that Gerardo Gibert was DQ'ed for events involving Deathrite Shaman and opponents losing life when this life lose should not have happened. www.twitch.tv/magic/b/503812813


and this one also ...


I'd be happy to be wrong, so what you're telling is interesting.

take an look to this quarter-finals : http://www.twitch.tv/magic/b/503812813

Here's what I see :

At 8h45, judge is talking.
At 8h47, after the delver attack, Javier (which is actualy the winner) reveals a bs as what it seems to be his natural draw.
He plays it. He looks 3 cards, take 2 in hand, then put 1 of these on the top. Either he got an extra draw for some reason I ignore, or he simply failed to put back 2 cards instead of 1.
Take another look, it seems there's a wrong brainstorm effect...

[Lemnear]

Shitstorm about Javiers cheat on camera already going. Case in investigation atm.

Thank @ValeLemnear & Twitter lol

[twndomn]

Moxes and lotus are restricted, that is kind of the same thing as being banned in Legacy.

As a sidenote, banning TNN would be good to re-introduce decks that have been disappearing lately. Not always because of TNN but because of the hate against TNN: cards that kill an X/1 without targetting or doing damage. Many of these decks didn't play blue.

Restricting in Vintage is Totally Different from Banned in Legacy. Restricted means that you can put them in deck. Hence, your creativity in Vintage has been cut down from 60 to 50-something, because every deck list runs those jewels. Banned is self-explanatory, therefore those banned cards exist in zero deck lists. If you accept every list contains the exact same set of cards in Vintage, then you should have no problem accepting the same for Legacy.

First of all, how many decks in the Top 8 run TNN? That says something about the format overall. Second, just because there're some TNN-hate cards doing splash damage, that doesn't mean the deck got hurt by the splash damage would disappear. Say most BGx decks runs 4 Abrupt Decay and 2~4 Golgari Charm, OMG, that's a lot of Enchantment hate, does that mean Miracle would do worse in a tournament filled with these BGx decks? Based on this GP, I don't think so.



Shitstorm about Javiers cheat on camera already going. Case in investigation atm.

Thank @ValeLemnear & Twitter lol

I feel sorry for Javier. They are tired when they get to the Final, I understand that, I'm not making excuse for him, but he didn't win the Final as much as Maxime threw it away. Sure, he drew and stuck his one-of null rod game 2. Game 3 Maxime really should have jammed that RiP onto the board. Now Javier's getting all the hate and people forget that Maxime was favored going in.

[Julian23]

BREAKING: #GPParis final standings are currently under review.

[Lord Seth]

Restricting in Vintage is Totally Different from Banned in Legacy. Restricted means that you can put them in deck. Hence, your creativity in Vintage has been cut down from 60 to 50-something, because every deck list runs those jewels. Banned is self-explanatory, therefore those banned cards exist in zero deck lists. If you accept every list contains the exact same set of cards in Vintage, then you should have no problem accepting the same for Legacy.
Except--and this is a point that I and others have pointed out that you seem to have no actual response to--the whole point of Vintage is that it's a format where cards are never banned for power level. The only cards banned are ones that cause issues outside of the game itself, namely Shahrazad (has no real purpose other than to stall out the clock), ante cards (questionable legal nature), and the dexterity cards (dexterity shouldn't be a thing in a game of Magic). No cards are banned for power reasons. No one complains about those cards not being banned in Vintage because the whole freaking point of Vintage is that cards don't get banned.


BREAKING: #GPParis final standings are currently under review.
Is this meant jokingly, or seriously? You don't give any links to confirm it, so I can't really tell.

[Julian23]

It's from Reuben Bresler's Twitter.

/edit: He didn't get picked up by WotC but mtgheadquarters. Still, I wonder if they leave it up to Kim's decision. That's an interesting start into her first HJ'ed GP and a "nice" birthday present, I assume, lol.

[suffah]

It's from Reuben Bresler's Twitter.

/edit: He didn't get picked up by WotC but mtgheadquarters. Still, I wonder if they leave it up to Kim's decision. That's an interesting start into her first HJ'ed GP and a "nice" birthday present, I assume, lol.


Also on the mothership

http://www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/eventcoverage/gppar14/standfin

[Lemnear]

It's from Reuben Bresler's Twitter.

/edit: He didn't get picked up by WotC but mtgheadquarters. Still, I wonder if they leave it up to Kim's decision. That's an interesting start into her first HJ'ed GP and a "nice" birthday present, I assume, lol.

Should be a swift judgement. Contacted Helene Burgeot about the case yesterday and she forwarded it. Drew Levine saw it and the thing got rollin

[LOurs]

At this point, there is simply no more reason not to cancel the quarter-final match.
Intentionnaly or not doesnt matter regarding the standing, even if it still does matter regarding the sanction though.
But honestly, the extra draw on bs definitly was decisive in that match, and it involves the final results as well. I'm sorry for the winner, but in all fairness it is not possible to establish if the play was just a wrong move or a cheat.

[Einherjer]

Has there been any case like this already? Will the rest of the top8 just move up one rank or will the money from the 1st be splitted among us 7 or what will actually happen? Does anybody know this?

Greetings

[Nihilis]

Has there been any case like this already? Will the rest of the top8 just move up one rank or will the money from the 1st be splitted among us 7 or what will actually happen? Does anybody know this?

Greetings

If they indeed deem he cheated (which imo he did, but I digress) and disqualify him, I'm guessing they will use the same procedure as with Mr. GG; just remove him from the rankings entirely i.e. everyone moves one place up. It seems the most sensible approach and a GP needs a winner after all. This is just my speculation though, what Wizards will actually do we'll find out in the next few days.

This really was an odd GP, I mean if they do this then only 6 people of the top 8 effectively made top 8.

[rufus]

...This really was an odd GP, I mean if they do this then only 6 people of the top 8 effectively made top 8.

Any chance that WotC actually improves their rules enforcement after incidents like this?

[Arsenal]

Considering the amount of money on the line for the players, the amount of money invested in setting these large-scale tourneys up, the technology at the disposal of tourney organizers, etc, I've always been dumbfounded as to why/how these blatant cheats are caught way, way sooner.

Anecdotally, I was watching twitch.tv last week and Mead Hall (TheMeadery) was streaming their Modern Monday local tourney. There was a player named Stephan who was obviously stacking the top of his Mono Green Ramp deck and won decisively due to drawing the cards he needed at the exact moment he needed them. The stream blew up about the cheating, I personally Googled the store and called them to report the cheater. The Judge, after watching the replay of the streamed/archived footage, DQed Stephan on stream and all was right with the world. And this is for a 15-20 player tourney that nobody really cares about.

In sports, there are usually officials "in the booth" who's sole purpose is to watch the TV feed/instant replay and determine if the play needs to be looked at further. This is very, very common for those who watch college football. Why can't there be something like that for these large-scale tourneys? A judge who is sitting far off by himself (isolated from outside interference) that is just watching the stream to detect any cheats. I believe that the bird's eye view that the stream feed shows things that likely cannot be detected while sitting across from the player.

[Esper3k]

At this point, there is simply no more reason not to cancel the quarter-final match.
Intentionnaly or not doesnt matter regarding the standing, even if it still does matter regarding the sanction though.
But honestly, the extra draw on bs definitly was decisive in that match, and it involves the final results as well. I'm sorry for the winner, but in all fairness it is not possible to establish if the play was just a wrong move or a cheat.

I believe intent actually is a huge factor here. It's the difference between cheating and a mistake. You don't DQ people for making mistakes - that's what the escalating warning system and game losses are for.

Yes, I think it'll be pretty tough to determine intent here but that's the key point that everything hinges on.

[Esper3k]

Considering the amount of money on the line for the players, the amount of money invested in setting these large-scale tourneys up, the technology at the disposal of tourney organizers, etc, I've always been dumbfounded as to why/how these blatant cheats are caught way, way sooner.

Anecdotally, I was watching twitch.tv last week and Mead Hall (TheMeadery) was streaming their Modern Monday local tourney. There was a player named Stephan who was obviously stacking the top of his Mono Green Ramp deck and won decisively due to drawing the cards he needed at the exact moment he needed them. The stream blew up about the cheating, I personally Googled the store and called them to report the cheater. The Judge, after watching the replay of the streamed/archived footage, DQed Stephan on stream and all was right with the world. And this is for a 15-20 player tourney that nobody really cares about.

In sports, there are usually officials "in the booth" who's sole purpose is to watch the TV feed/instant replay and determine if the play needs to be looked at further. This is very, very common for those who watch college football. Why can't there be something like that for these large-scale tourneys? A judge who is sitting far off by himself (isolated from outside interference) that is just watching the stream to detect any cheats. I believe that the bird's eye view that the stream feed shows things that likely cannot be detected while sitting across from the player.

Hopefully this event will encourage WoTC to actually make changes like what you suggested to have a faster turnaround time on catching things like this.

Hell, even just having the judge monitor the twitter / chat room so when the internet blows up would be pretty useful. Might as well use the thousands of eyes watching the feature match to catch it for you.

[Megadeus]

I believe intent actually is a huge factor here. It's the difference between cheating and a mistake. You don't DQ people for making mistakes - that's what the escalating warning system and game losses are for.

Yes, I think it'll be pretty tough to determine intent here but that's the key point that everything hinges on.

True, but it is very difficult to determine intent here in this case as you said. As unfortunate as it is, he DID break a rule that had a major effect on a game and won the tourney thanks to it. I'm not a DCI official or a judge so I can't say what is proper protocol here, but he definitely should not keep the GP Champ title regardless of intent

[Arsenal]

I find it incredibly difficult to believe that he made a simple, honest "mistake" with Brainstorm. I mean, just muscle memory alone would likely prevent you from putting only 1 card back. With thousands on the line and needing the exact cards off that Brainstorm, he just makes a "mistake" at the most opportune moment possible? Right...

[JDK]

Hell, even just having the judge monitor the twitter / chat room so when the internet blows up would be pretty useful. Might as well use the thousands of eyes watching the feature match to catch it for you.

As I said, the twitch chat didn't even seem to notice or care about Javier's action. I commented the rules violation with something like "did javier just play ancestral recall?", but nobody else said anything about the brainstorm.

Sure, sometimes things get noticed, but in this case it wouldn't have helped.

[Arsenal]

As I said, the twitch chat didn't even seem to notice or care about Javier's action. I commented the rules violation with something like "did javier just play ancestral recall?", but nobody else said anything about the brainstorm.

Sure, sometimes things get noticed, but in this case it wouldn't have helped.

I think having every available tool at your disposal will increase the chances of catching stuff like this. I think having a dedicated "watcher" who monitors the stream feed (much like the booth officials who monitor the TV feed for football games call down to the field officials when the game needs to stopped for further review) and monitors the chat feed and anything/everything else that can be monitored will be helpful in catching cheats.

[Esper3k]

I find it incredibly difficult to believe that he made a simple, honest "mistake" with Brainstorm. I mean, just muscle memory alone would likely prevent you from putting only 1 card back. With thousands on the line and needing the exact cards off that Brainstorm, he just makes a "mistake" at the most opportune moment possible? Right...

Just to play Devil's Advocate here, but on the other hand, you can look at someone who had to probably play 12 hours of MTG straight (and probably another 12 hours the day before), possibly jetlagged from international travel, is in a very high pressure match (T4 of a GP), you're in game 3, and on camera.


As I said, the twitch chat didn't even seem to notice or care about Javier's action. I commented the rules violation with something like "did javier just play ancestral recall?", but nobody else said anything about the brainstorm.

Sure, sometimes things get noticed, but in this case it wouldn't have helped.

Yeah, there's no perfect solution - I mean the table judge watching didn't catch it either. I think something like Arsenal's idea is probably a fairly low cost change that could be made to be just another check. Of course, this would only apply to feature matches, so a very low percentage of matches, but at least it would make the matches look better in the public eye.

[JDK]

Of course. As you can clearly read, I was just talking about the specific situation at hand, not in general.

[Arsenal]

Having sat across from players who've cheated before, I can tell you that the steam's bird's eye view catches things that are hard to detect when sitting across from the opponent who's at the same level as your line of sight. The perspective and line of sight are vastly different, which allows players to us sleight of hand tricks that are difficult to detect when sitting at the table, but easy to see when looking from a bird's eye view.

For example, the Mead Hall player, Stephan, who was stacking his deck everytime he shuffled. His opponent likely didn't even know that Stephan was plucking a card out of the deck and moving it to the top as Stephan was sure to hold his deck in such a way that it was difficult to see what was happening (all he likely saw was the backs of 50+ same-colored sleeves being "shuffled" by Stephan) but it was easy to see from the stream feed as the bird's eye view allowed us to see what Stephan was seeing.

Same with football. The booth officials not only are watching the TV feed from 12+ different camera angles, but they're sitting high above the playing field, which allows them to see things happen live that the field officials couldn't possibly see due to limited perspective and line of sight from the infraction.

[Nielsie]

Just to play Devil's Advocate here, but on the other hand, you can look at someone who had to probably play 12 hours of MTG straight (and probably another 12 hours the day before), possibly jetlagged from international travel, is in a very high pressure match (T4 of a GP), you're in game 3, and on camera.
I doubt he was jetlagged, isn't he from Spain? Spain and France are on the same timezone ;)

Fatigue from playing could be a factor, but I don't realy buy it. Just the way how he resolved that BS, his whole body language looked fishy. Not to mention he must have Brainstormed a thousands times during the tournament and it's not like he forgot to put cards back, he did put 1 back, how the hell can you forget to put the second back?

[HSCK]

http://blogs.magicjudges.org/whatsupdocs/mipg/2-game-play-errors/2-5-game-play-error-game-rule-violation/

It's almost as if judges have some sort of procedure. It's not cheating until intent and pattern can be established.

[JPA]

I saw A LOT of shady plays at this GP and seriously start to wonder how much cheating was/gets actually done at big tournaments. Similar things happened at BoM Annecy 2013 where two undefeated players got DQed mid-day 2 for stacking their decks.

They should definitely punish Dominguez for that cheat, hopefully it will be a warning to all of the other cheaters that did not get featured on camera.

I definitely prefer my local community, where I know every one plays honestly, to the whole European Legacy scene which seems more and more shady to me with every GP/BoM I attend. :frown:

[Raystar]

While I agree that we should use all the tools available to monitor matches like the one in discussion, at the same time that would be 1% (or less) of all the matches in an event like a GP...it is not enough.

I strongly believe that if a player cheats in an important event like a GP and "on camera" he is probably used to behave in such a way. It means that he should have been caught before and sanctioned in a way that would prevent any form of participation to organized play for a very very long time. What I mean is that rules enforcement and pruning of the players that are not morally at the right level should happen way before a thing of this kind happens and if a player's curriculum gets stained by cheating he/she should be prevented from participating to a professional/semi-professional event forever.

If J. Dominguez gets disqualified for cheating on-camera I don't want to know what he may have done during the rest of the GP when he met less prepared opponents and was very far from the eyes of a judge...

[Arsenal]

Increasing the chances of catching even 1% of cheaters is worth it, imo.

If I'm a player who is thinking of spending hundreds of dollars on travel, hotel, food, tourney entry, etc, I want to have confidence that the tourney organizers are taking all reasonable and necessary steps so that the competition is fair and even. If I know that cheating happens regularly at a particular tournament, I'll likely spend my tournament money elsewhere.

[Raystar]

Increasing the chances of catching even 1% of cheaters is worth it, imo.

If I'm a player who is thinking of spending hundreds of dollars on travel, hotel, food, tourney entry, etc, I want to have confidence that the tourney organizers are taking all reasonable and necessary steps so that the competition is fair and even. If I know that cheating happens regularly at a particular tournament, I'll likely spend my tournament money elsewhere.

I'm sure I wasn't clear: I agree with you, if something can be done it needs to be done.

At the same time I believe that it is not even remotely close to be enough. We need cheaters eradicated from the competitive environment long before they have a chance to cheat on-camera during a GP Top8.

[ramanujan]

I'm sure I wasn't clear: I agree with you, if something can be done it needs to be done.

At the same time I believe that it is not even remotely close to be enough. We need cheaters eradicated from the competitive environment long before they have a chance to cheat on-camera during a GP Top8.

In no way am I trying to start something but honestly think about how realistic that expectation is. Our world is teeny tiny potatoes compared to poker or gambling. Both Poker and Gambling ventures have very long histories filled with successful cheaters. The budget to catch cheats in those arenas is very very high. Think about all of those pit bosses and middle managers in Casinoes and all of the pros in the back room looking at live feeds. All of them are getting paid real money and still cheats succeed sometimes.

Cheaters have been a big part of Magic since 1993. They will continue to be. I don't like it any more than any other honest player but to pretend like things are fine is pretty ignorant. Similarly, to think that you can fix the problem by putting more duties on already busy judges is rather rediculous. I doubt very many judges are adept at catching cheaters. Until something pretty big changes I expect that cheating will continue to have a big affect on our game. The early rounds are a free for all for cheaters as the judges are vastly outnumbered. If I can figure that out, I am sure that cheaters have as well.

The only simple thing I can think of which should decrease the kind of cheating discussed here is to require players to deal cards to thier opponent. I know it sounds wierd but when you think about it but it would work. I have suggested it a few times in various forums but noone seems to think it is a good idea. That is fine with me but I stand by my point that it would help the situation.

Peace

[Megadeus]

It is on the players to be watchful of their opponent and for them to call a judge if there is ever a question about anything that even SEEMS sketchy to weed out cheaters.

[catmint]

In case it is a cheat it would be a new category of cheater. Unlike Bertoncinis brainstorm the cheat is so easy to detect that there is no hope for him that it is not noticed... So he would have to expect to be caught and hope the judges rule it as a mistake and even in this case live with the shame of being a potential undetected cheater or at least winning a tournament based on a missed game loss.

Is it known if the card was critical for the game state? If not and his warning history does not indicate anything I would just rule it as a mistake.

[wcm8]

I didn't see the match, but did the mistake have something to do with a Delver trigger? It's possible that the player mistakenly thought he was playing a Brainstorm during his upkeep, and put 1 back since he would then have a natural draw after upkeep.

I'm not defending cheating in the slightest, but mistakes *do* happen, and something sloppy like this doesn't mean that he was doing it the entire tournament. There are a ton of complex interactions that can be easy to mistake, especially consider a player's mental state after dozens of rounds of playing, jetlag, lack of sleep, lack of proper nutrition, etc.

As a matter of habit, I try to keep track of my opponent's hand size, especially when they play cards like Brainstorm, Ponder, and Jace +0. I'm not saying it's entirely up to you to prevent cheating, but his opponent and the judges watching the match should have caught this at the time.

[twndomn]

I'm confused, someone enlightens me with answer(s): what's the difference between mistakes and cheats, does it come down to intent?

If... the difference is intent, how do judges discover or determine that?

I saw the video coverage live, here is what I saw: I saw 2 very tired players, relaxed and excited, seemly having fun. I wonder how many energy drinks have they consumed. I did not even spot the so-called brainstorm mishap when it occurred. To me, the final's decided by game 2 Javier drew his one-of null rod and jammed it early, game 3 Maxime threw it away when he did not hide his RiP from hymn.

Now, people are creating Internet storm about Javier using keyboards and pitchforks, and I feel like I'm the only person feeling disgusted by Maxime's decision.

Should Javier be punished for his GRV? Absolutely yes. Should he be deemed a cheater or did he actually perform the act of cheating? I'm still not sure. These topics should not be mixed.

[Serbitar]

Seems like Wizards is reviewing the issue. Final Standings are under re-examination. (http://www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/eventcoverage/gppar14/standfin)

Also, the incident was not related to a Delver trigger. He played Delver afterwards.

[nedleeds]

Technically Brainstorm says draw 3 cards. So it's not drawing extra cards (game loss), he fails to fulfill the terms of the spell by not putting 2 back. Another nail in Brainstorms coffin is it's an open opportunity for people to savagely cheat. This humiliating top 8 GP example of it looks awful for WotC. He's obviously cheating because e's a top 8 GP competitor who knows better. He even counts his 'put backs out'.

[Einherjer]

... and I feel like I'm the only person feeling disgusted by Maxime's decision.


Explain yourself or you will end on my ignore-list faster than you can say "fuck". Either you used the wrong word unitentionally or you're finally being ignored.

Greetings

[PirateKing]

I didn't see the match, but did the mistake have something to do with a Delver trigger? It's possible that the player mistakenly thought he was playing a Brainstorm during his upkeep, and put 1 back since he would then have a natural draw after upkeep.

I'm not defending cheating in the slightest, but mistakes *do* happen, and something sloppy like this doesn't mean that he was doing it the entire tournament. There are a ton of complex interactions that can be easy to mistake, especially consider a player's mental state after dozens of rounds of playing, jetlag, lack of sleep, lack of proper nutrition, etc.

As a matter of habit, I try to keep track of my opponent's hand size, especially when they play cards like Brainstorm, Ponder, and Jace +0. I'm not saying it's entirely up to you to prevent cheating, but his opponent and the judges watching the match should have caught this at the time.

He starts his turn with 1 card in hand, untaps.
Draws for turn and just flips it over to reveal it's a Brainstorm without ever having that card interact with with the card in his hand.
So he's drawn his card for turn, 1 card in hand, drawn card face up in front of him.
Taps an Underground Sea to pay for Brainstorm.
Draws 3 cards, 4 now in hand.
Puts 1 card back.
Plays Delver of Secrets and a Flooded Strand.
Still has one card in hand.

If he had put 2 back, his hand should be empty, and it's not.

[D@N]

Another nail in Brainstorms coffin is it's an open opportunity for people to savagely cheat. This humiliating top 8 GP example of it looks awful for WotC.

Please don't bring that crap thread in here. Just because he might of forgot/cheated in no way has anything to do with wotc or the dci. It is solely the responsibility of the player to play correctly.

[DragoFireheart]

It is on the players to be watchful of their opponent and for them to call a judge if there is ever a question about anything that even SEEMS sketchy to weed out cheaters.

So not only do I have to focus on my own game, I have to watch my opponent to ensure he isn't cheating? Why not just have a Judge at EVERY single table then?

I'd rather not encourage a toxic environment if I have to assume my opponent is a cheater and I must play Watchman while also playing magic.


Please don't bring that crap thread in here. Just because he might of forgot/cheated in no way has anything to do with wotc or the dci. It is solely the responsibility of the player to play correctly.

This is actually the perfect and correct thread to bring this topic into. If you can't handle the topic, don't discuss it. And don't waste your time telling others not to.

[Barook]

Way stricter rule enforcement is probably way to go here, be it intentional or not. As long as reward > risk, cheating is going to be rampant.

Banning a card because it promotes cheating is can of worms I would rather not open. Cards should only be banned if it affects the format itself badly in some way, not because some people break the rules.

[sdematt]

Agreed.

The other awkward thing is the opponent looks away when Javier is still resolving the Brainstorm for some reason, and he has t assume J. put two cards back, even though he had only counted one back. However, I also don't see Javier glance up while the other guy is looking away, trying to "see" if he could get away with it. Either he made a mistake or he's cheated before. It's really hard to tell, but there's a lot to gain when you make a mistake with Brainstorm as opposed to another card/scenario.

-Matt

[twndomn]

Explain yourself or you will end on my ignore-list faster than you can say "fuck". Either you used the wrong word unitentionally or you're finally being ignored.

Greetings

Explain what? If you watch the coverage now, commentators mentioned that Miracle's favored going in. You said it yourself you would have crushed BUG. Obviously, the result did not turn out that way. How could this be? Shouldn't the discussion on a GP Paris thread about how Miracle didn't get it done? Instead the thread focuses on BUG player for the wrong reason. To me at the least, not hiding the RiP game 3 is huge. I wish Maxime would come to this thread and explain his decision process on that one. Can the topic shift from the so called Cheating to why Miracle was favored but did not win?

[DragoFireheart]

Banning a card because it promotes cheating is can of worms I would rather not open. Cards should only be banned if it affects the format itself badly in some way, not because some people break the rules.

Banning a card because it's too easy to abuse and/or logistical issues is a valid reason to ban such a card.

Worldgorger Dragon
Shahrazad


Come to mind.

[DragoFireheart]

Can the topic shift from the so called Cheating to why Miracle was favored but did not win?

Luck.

[Barook]

Banning a card because it's too easy to abuse and/or logistical issues is a valid reason to ban such a card.

Worldgorger Dragon
Shahrazad


Come to mind.
Also SDT in Modern because it's too time-consuming (but not in Legacy? :eyebrow: ).

That's why I worded it "affects the format itself badly in some way" since both abuse the rules to stall matches, but they still act within the rules.

Drawing extra cards from Brainstorm is a clear violation of the game rules.

[rufus]

Way stricter rule enforcement is probably way to go here, be it intentional or not. As long as reward > risk, cheating is going to be rampant.

They could make people play some kind of captive version of MTGO. That should eliminate a lot of issues.

[Einherjer]

Explain what? If you watch the coverage now, commentators mentioned that Miracle's favored going in. You said it yourself you would have crushed BUG. Obviously, the result did not turn out that way. How could this be? Shouldn't the discussion on a GP Paris thread about how Miracle didn't get it done? Instead the thread focuses on BUG player for the wrong reason. To me at the least, not hiding the RiP game 3 is huge. I wish Maxime would come to this thread and explain his decision process on that one. Can the topic shift from the so called Cheating to why Miracle was favored but did not win?

You used the word "disgusting". I googled it to make sure I am not skipping on any side-translations. I did not skip any. This word is plain insulting. I came to know Maxime during the tournament and I hold great respect for him. I lost two fucking mirrors 0-2 to him (2 of my three losses at the whole weekend). Your choice of words made me fucking mad. How can you be disgusted by a mistake by him? Everybody can make fucking mistakes! Especially if you have played all fucking weekend long without byes and be undefeated for a very long time of the tournament! Plus we played Miracles. And now you AT HOME are DISGUSTED by his plays? Like WHAT THE FUCK? You can point out the misplays, which he is aware of, but being disgusted about his plays really triggered me raging. Again, how can you fucking be disgusted? We battled all weekend to the top and misplays happen!

And yes I am very confident with my BUG-MU. I didn't drop a single game to it during the GP. 2-0 and 1-0. Does that mean I could not have lost the Mirror? For sure I could have lost it! A mistake here, a failed opportunity there and I'd have lost the finals. You can be sorry, but not disgusted.

Greetings

[HammafistRoob]

Also SDT in Modern because it's too time-consuming (but not in Legacy? :eyebrow: ).

That's why I worded it "affects the format itself badly in some way" since both abuse the rules to stall matches, but they still act within the rules.

Drawing extra cards from Brainstorm is a clear violation of the game rules.

It makes sense that Top would be too time consuming in Modern because it would probably be played in ~80% of decks. This is clearly not a problem in Legacy.

[YamiJoey]

@Ein: Going to assume twndomn's first language is English here. If that's true, saying you're "disgusted" or that something is "disgusting" is quite common to mean "kind of bad". We tend to use our language very loosely, so don't be too offended by it. Though going off've twndomn's history, they may've just been trying to draw a reaction from you. Either way I'm sure they weren't actually 'disgusted', though I did personally cringe when he opted to put it back in his hand.

@Barook: Modern is a format with less powerful cards and overall slower games. In Legacy every turn counts way more, so making every turn last twice as long increases those 7 turns a lot. When yoyu're making a chunk of 15 turns last longer, suddenly you're making games go well over an hour.

The card is actually OP though. Modern is Legacy -Card selection and too many ridiculous 2-card combos. Splinter-mite costs 7 mana, Kiki something being 8, the closest you get to that in Legacy is Rip/Helm, and that's in the only legitimate control deck in the format.

[Einherjer]

@Ein: Going to assume twndomn's first language is English here. If that's true, saying you're "disgusted" or that something is "disgusting" is quite common to mean "kind of bad". We tend to use our language very loosely, so don't be too offended by it. Though going off've twndomn's history, they may've just been trying to draw a reaction from you. Either way I'm sure they weren't actually 'disgusted', though I did personally cringe when he opted to put it back in his hand.



If you are right I would like to apologize for the now senseless rage. I am sorry.

Greetings

[Barook]

They could make people play some kind of captive version of MTGO. That should eliminate a lot of issues.
I'm more interested what the hell the judges were doing at that time.

You run a tournament with 1000+ people, yet you don't have enough judges to eagle-eye the four most important matches of the tournament when everybody else is gone?

[Esper3k]

I'm confused, someone enlightens me with answer(s): what's the difference between mistakes and cheats, does it come down to intent?

If... the difference is intent, how do judges discover or determine that?

That's the difference, yes. If you break a rule by accident, it's a mistake (and there are appropriate penalties involved with it). If you knowingly (have intent) break a rule, it's cheating and a DQ.

Pretty much the entire penalties system in MTG is for mistakes since if you determine intent to break a rule, it just falls into cheating.

As for determining intent, that's the tough part. From speaking with judges, it usually involves quite a bit of investigation (speaking to players, speaking with onlookers, looking at the game state, etc.).

[Tammit67]

Banning a card because it's too easy to abuse and/or logistical issues is a valid reason to ban such a card.

Worldgorger Dragon
Shahrazad


Come to mind.

'Abuse' here not meaning cheating. Worldgorger draws a game, shahrazad makes the game go to time. There are zero things illegal with those plays, they simply increase the time necessary for a match to reach its natural conclusion. And you know this.

If we examine brainstorm for banning because of its 'cheat potential', then certainly the fetchlands are absolutely the first things banned next announcement. And you also know this.

Brainstorm may very well be too good, but banning it for the reason you are suggesting is laughable. The precedents you present are incorrect also.

[D@N]

This is actually the perfect and correct thread to bring this topic into. If you can't handle the topic, don't discuss it. And don't waste your time telling others not to.

Actually it's not, since the title of the thread is gp coverage and has changed to another anti brainstorm thread from this forums vocal minority, please remember the rules of posting.

[DragoFireheart]

Actually it's not, since the title of the thread is gp coverage and has changed to another anti brainstorm thread from this forums vocal minority, please remember the rules of posting.

Brainstorm was used to cheat at the event. Therefore, it's valid discussion to bring up some of the issues the card brings.


'Abuse' here not meaning cheating. Worldgorger draws a game, shahrazad makes the game go to time. There are zero things illegal with those plays, they simply increase the time necessary for a match to reach its natural conclusion. And you know this.



Purposing dragging out a match is also illegal. (Slow play).

[Tormod]

Brainstorm was used to cheat at the event. Therefore, it's valid discussion to bring up some of the issues the card brings.

Wow what a leap

player was booted for questionable Deathrite Shaman activations during round 13 of the GP, so we should talk about banning deathrite shaman now?

:really:

[John Cox]

Brainstorm was used to cheat at the event. Therefore, it's valid discussion to bring up some of the issues the card brings.

And he had mono coloured sleeves on the brainstorm! Can't you see this is the thread for sleeve colour discussion? Oh! And he was sitting on a chair... hmmm

[Tammit67]

Purposing dragging out a match is also illegal. (Slow play).

False. Failing to advance the game state is slow play. Taking actions that happen to prolong the game is not.

[DragoFireheart]

False. Failing to advance the game state is slow play. Taking actions that happen to prolong the game is not.

Four Horsemen.

[JPoJohnson]

Four Horsemen.

Quite often has an act that doesn't advance the game state at all. I'm not sure that's a valid point towards anything.

[DragoFireheart]

Quite often has an act that doesn't advance the game state at all. I'm not sure that's a valid point towards anything.

It will advance the game state eventually. But because it often does not and prolongs that point, it's considered slow play.

[JPoJohnson]

It will advance the game state eventually. But because it often does not and prolongs that point, it's considered slow play.

I have no idea what you're trying to prove. Sorry, I must be missing something.

[Julian23]

It will advance the game state eventually. But because it often does not and prolongs that point, it's considered slow play.

It might, but there's no gurantee. Otherwise the player would be allowed to loop. 99,999..% is not 100% in Magic

But I like how the topic went from Cheating, to Brainstorm to Four Horsemen. Is this our equivalent of Godwin's Law?

[DragoFireheart]

I have no idea what you're trying to prove. Sorry, I must be missing something.

Perfectly legal moves can be considered slow play even if you execute them in a reasonable amount of time. Playing Four Horsemen means you have to purposely drag out the match because you can not define the number of iterations it takes to kill your opponent.

[DragoFireheart]

It might, but there's no gurantee. Otherwise the player would be allowed to loop. 99,999..% is not 100% in Magic

But I like how the topic went from Cheating, to Brainstorm to Four Horsemen. Is this our equivalent of Godwin's Law?

Well, sometimes Hitler is considered one of the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse.

[Tammit67]

Four Horsemen.

My point exactly?

Four horseman fails because you are voluntarily looping an indefinite number of times. When you declare a loop, you have to tell me not only the consequence but the appropriate number of times to achieve the desired outcome. you cannot do this with the Four Horseman combo.

There is no precedent for what you are claiming.

[JDK]

It might, but there's no gurantee. Otherwise the player would be allowed to loop. 99,999..% is not 100% in Magic

But I like how the topic went from Cheating, to Brainstorm to Four Horsemen. Is this our equivalent of Godwin's Law?

More like Drago's Law.

[YamiJoey]

RE: 4 Horsemen.

You may go off and hit Emrakul, causing a situation of zero Graveyard. You may then hit Emrakul again, causing the same situation. Now each time you go off the game state must change, this means you go off every time you regain priority. Every step and phase change, every spell or ability cast or resolving etc. This is legal. However, the beast that is 4 Horsemen also means it's not a reliable win condition anymore, as you could spend 2-3 turns not doing anything, then you're dead.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

On a technical note it's not that in the rules of Magic, 99.999...% != 100%, it's just that there's no infinite numbers allowed in the game of Magic. Technically speaking, the game doesn't allow "infinite" combos, just arbitrarily large one. But since you can only name a finite number there is some real, non-zero chance that the combo will fail to execute in that time.

[rufus]

Since the thread is completely off the rails already:


Playing Four Horsemen means you have to purposely drag out the match because you can not define the number of iterations it takes to kill your opponent.
I could, just as validly, say: Playing [Spanish Inquisition] means you have to purposely drag out the match because you can not define the number of [card draws] it takes to kill your opponent.
The (ostensible) reason that four horsemen is banned is because going off does not 'meaningfully advance the game state'. This seems absurd: a predictable series of legal actions with a high expectation of winning the game seems like the epitome of moving the game forward.


RE: 4 Horsemen.
You may go off and hit Emrakul, causing a situation of zero Graveyard. You may then hit Emrakul again, causing the same situation. Now each time you go off the game state must change, this means you go off every time you regain priority. Every step and phase change, every spell or ability cast or resolving etc. This is legal. However, the beast that is 4 Horsemen also means it's not a reliable win condition anymore, as you could spend 2-3 turns not doing anything, then you're dead.
In the case of Bassalt Monolith/Mesmeric Orb you can easily change the number of orb triggers that are on the stack when the Emrakul trigger resolves. It's possible to fiddle the minutiae so that exact state repetition is (at worst) extremely unlikely. Based on the discussion in the Four Horsemen thread, even though it means that the visible game state is not repeated this is not allowed as a workaround.


Four horseman fails because you are voluntarily looping an indefinite number of times. ...
Although I'm sure people shortcut through it frequently, the rules don't allow 'looping' over any random event. For example, as has been pointed out by others, if (by some stupid fate) an indefinite Goblin Bangchucker activation combo were to go up against a Life.dec player that had gone to 10^100 life, then the Bangchucker player could (theoretically) put 3*10^100 bangchucker activations on the stack, but would not be able to resolve them in our lifetimes. What's more ,as far as I can tell, the bangchucker player would be charged with slow play if he tried to do that.

[YamiJoey]

In the case of Bassalt Monolith/Mesmeric Orb you can easily change the number of orb triggers that are on the stack when the Emrakul trigger resolves. It's possible to fiddle the minutiae so that exact state repetition is (at worst) extremely unlikely. Based on the discussion in the Four Horsemen thread, even though it means that the visible game state is not repeated this is not allowed as a workaround.

It's about physically advancing the game, though. If you cast Enter the Infinite with a Tamiyo Emblem and Omniscience out, you may not cast and counter every Spell in your deck as a time-wasting procedure, even though the situation is different each time.

[joretapo]

On a technical note it's not that in the rules of Magic, 99.999...% != 100%,.

by the way, 99.999... is equal to 100 provided ... means an infinite number of 9 decimals.

EDIT : well that is what you meant, i misunderstood your post ;)

[LOurs]

I believe intent actually is a huge factor here. It's the difference between cheating and a mistake. You don't DQ people for making mistakes - that's what the escalating warning system and game losses are for.

Yes, I think it'll be pretty tough to determine intent here but that's the key point that everything hinges on.

Let's be clear : I didnt say intent is not important. It definitly is to establish the sanction. My point was only to say that the victory (the standing/result/final ranking) seems much less legit if a failure in ruling involved a biased final result. And in that case, the failure is obvious. It hurts me a lot to have a public proof of this thank to video and to just ignore it by considering that "it could have been a mistake".

Honestly, I believe that there is at the very least a reasonable doubt on cheating. I'm not saying it was the intent, but we could have a doubt on it. And to me, this fact plus an obvious ruling mistake catched on video should be enough to change the final ranking. But that's only my opinion.

[Julian23]

On a technical note it's not that in the rules of Magic, 99.999...% != 100%, it's just that there's no infinite numbers allowed in the game of Magic.

...which in turn is the reason that 99,99..% != 100%. If infinite number of repetitions were allowed, the probability would approach 100%.

But I guess we're as far off what people were actually talking about as we could be now.

[Lord Seth]

Any updates or information about what's going to happen to the Top 8?

[Tammit67]

I could, just as validly, say: Playing [Spanish Inquisition] means you have to purposely drag out the match because you can not define the number of [card draws] it takes to kill your opponent.
The (ostensible) reason that four horsemen is banned is because going off does not 'meaningfully advance the game state'. This seems absurd: a predictable series of legal actions with a high expectation of winning the game seems like the epitome of moving the game forward.


As the judges presiding have ruled, milling yourself to have a chance at a certain gamestate is not advancing the gamestate while resolving spells and drawing cards are methods of advancing the gamestate.

The predictable actions you describe do not have a finite end result, only a probabilistic one. That is the DCI's issue.

I think it is kinda nonsense personally.

ON TOPIC:

I'm in love with these miracle lists, pretty much exactly what I want without knowing that I wanted it in the first place

[AznSeal]

You used the word "disgusting". I googled it to make sure I am not skipping on any side-translations. I did not skip any. This word is plain insulting. I came to know Maxime during the tournament and I hold great respect for him. I lost two fucking mirrors 0-2 to him (2 of my three losses at the whole weekend). Your choice of words made me fucking mad. How can you be disgusted by a mistake by him? Everybody can make fucking mistakes! Especially if you have played all fucking weekend long without byes and be undefeated for a very long time of the tournament! Plus we played Miracles. And now you AT HOME are DISGUSTED by his plays? Like WHAT THE FUCK? You can point out the misplays, which he is aware of, but being disgusted about his plays really triggered me raging. Again, how can you fucking be disgusted? We battled all weekend to the top and misplays happen!

And yes I am very confident with my BUG-MU. I didn't drop a single game to it during the GP. 2-0 and 1-0. Does that mean I could not have lost the Mirror? For sure I could have lost it! A mistake here, a failed opportunity there and I'd have lost the finals. You can be sorry, but not disgusted.

Greetings

Someone's jimmies got rustled so hard lol.

The rude had an opinion; let him be. I'm "disgusted" because Lebron chose to leave Cleveland and other people have respect for him.

[sdematt]

ON TOPIC:

I'm in love with these miracle lists, pretty much exactly what I want without knowing that I wanted it in the first place

The lists have been worked on and like this for a while, they're not new ;)

-Matt

[Tammit67]

The lists have been worked on and like this for a while, they're not new ;)

-Matt

I'm well aware but for whatever reason I found myself quickly dissatisfied with them at other points in time.

[mulder]

Do they already know the winner by now... ?

[Barook]

Just watching the Pro Tour.

Yet another case of obvious cheating on camera.

No, Azusa is not symmetrical, so your opponent playing 2 lands in one turn is not okay. Even the commentators didn't catch it.

[Lemnear]

Just watching the Pro Tour.

Yet another case of obvious cheating on camera.

No, Azusa is not symmetrical, so your opponent playing 2 lands in one turn is not okay. Even the commentators didn't catch it.

For fucks sake! Make a video or send the link + timestamp to Helene Burgeot like I did with Javiers cheat on GP Paris and let her forward it

[Philipp2293]

In this case the situation was obvious in a hilarious way, it's beyond my understanding how absolutely nobody could catch it.

[Arsenal]

There's been much talk of intent when determining a cheat vs. a mistake. In most competitive endeavors, if an infraction occurs, regardless of intent, the offender receives punishment in full. I mean, in professional sports (Major League Baseball, USA Track & Field, National Football League, etc), if a player is found to have used a banned substance, regardless of intent/use/ignorance/etc, that player receives a suspension. The player can talk all he wants about being "setup", that he didn't know that the cream he used had the banned substance in it, etc, but he still receives a suspension/ban nonetheless. I'm curious as to why Magic doesn't adopt a similar approach.

[lordofthepit]

There's been much talk of intent when determining a cheat vs. a mistake. In most competitive endeavors, if an infraction occurs, regardless of intent, the offender receives punishment in full. I mean, in professional sports (Major League Baseball, USA Track & Field, National Football League, etc), if a player is found to have used a banned substance, regardless of intent/use/ignorance/etc, that player receives a suspension. The player can talk all he wants about being "setup", that he didn't know that the cream he used had the banned substance in it, etc, but he still receives a suspension/ban nonetheless. I'm curious as to why Magic doesn't adopt a similar approach.

An infraction such as a personal foul, offsides, running out of your lane, etc. has prescribed penalties (e.g. 5-yard penalty). It is at the discretion of the competitors involved to assess how aggressively they want to play given the risk of penalties involved.

In Magic, I believe an infraction such as drawing extra cards carries a game warning and possible game loss. Players are compelled to maintain proper game state.

Only in cases where cheating is deemed to be intentional (in sports or in Magic) are the repercussions more severe. Just because the refs missed that a defender's hand grazed the offensive player's hand as he gathered for the shot doesn't make the former a cheater, nor does it cause hordes of Internet fans to advocate for his suspension from the sport. Your analogy actually reveals that rules enforcement in Magic is actually fairly consistent with the precedent set in sports.

[Arsenal]

Cheating in sports is punished regardless of proven intent. In MLB, if you're caught using a banned substance, even if you swear on your mother's grave that you didn't know/wasn't intentionally trying to gain an edge/etc, you still receive a 50 game suspension. If you fess up and say, "yeah, I cheated on purpose", you still receive the same 50 game suspension. Intent doesn't matter, only if you cheated as a result of the offense.

[lordofthepit]

Cheating in sports is punished regardless of proven intent. In MLB, if you're caught using a banned substance, even if you swear on your mother's grave that you didn't know/wasn't intentionally trying to gain an edge/etc, you still receive a 50 game suspension. If you fess up and say, "yeah, I cheated on purpose", you still receive the same 50 game suspension. Intent doesn't matter, only if you cheated as a result of the offense.

Cheating by definition involves intent.

Edit: I'll have a more thorough response when I'm at a computer.

[twndomn]

Just so if anyone still cares, the final standing is no longer under examination. http://www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtg%2Fdaily%2Feventcoverage%2Fgppar14%2Fstandfin

[mulder]

It took them almost a week to come to that conclusion. Wow. Disappointing that a guy who was OBVIOUSLY cheating doesn't get punished.

[Einherjer]

It took them almost a week to come to that conclusion. Wow. Disappointing that a guy who was OBVIOUSLY cheating doesn't get punished.

It is neither the job of individual players nor the one of our community to determine whether or not he cheated. According to the DCI he did not. Accept it.

http://www.wizards.com/magic/magazine/article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/other/021202014b

Greetings

[JPoJohnson]

It is neither the job of individual players nor the one of our community to determine whether or not he cheated. According to the DCI he did not. Accept it.

http://www.wizards.com/magic/magazine/article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/other/021202014b

Greetings

Agreed.

Appreciate the link.

[JDK]

Everyone is free to express his opinion on this matter, regardless if you have the authority to decide, or not. Accept it.

[Lemnear]

During an on-camera match in the quarterfinals, Javier Dominguez played Brainstorm and only returned one card to the top of his library when resolving it. After investigating the issue and discussing it with the player, Head Judge Tessitori and the Investigations Committee have concluded that the error was accidental. The infraction has been noted in Dominguez' penalty history. Since the error was not noticed during the game and Cheating has been ruled out in this situation, the Grand Prix result will stand as is.

"Because the Judges didn't catch him cheating but the community and we're not having an idea how to handle the issue AFTER the tournament (nor have a clue how to explain 2 DQ's within a single T8), we decided to leave it that way"

[Nastaboi]

The community didn't "catch him cheating" either. What we can see on the video is incorrectly resolved Brainstorm, that could be either honest mistake or bold cheating, but we can't tell by just watching it. Did the community cross-examine the player and everyone involved? What has the community done to find out whether it was intentional or not? Called his mom and asked if he had a terrible childhood? I know that judges and investigations commitee did some work to find out whether he was cheating or not. Have some respect on judges, please.

To me, it looked like a honest brainfart. If one would cheat with Brainstorm, he wouldn't do it so that he explicity shows he's putting just one card back, right?


nor have a clue how to explain 2 DQ's within a single T8

What do you mean by that? Should judges apology for all Magic community that they have to disqualify two players? Would you have felt better, if there was just one disqualification within top 8 instead?

[Arsenal]

Again, if a MLB player was caught with a banned substance in his system, but said "Whoops, I didn't know that sports drink contained that banned substance. It was never my intention to gain a competitive edge", he wouldn't just be able to walk away from that with a "Oh, you didn't mean to gain a competitive advantage? That's cool man, just don't do it again." No. He'd receive a 50 game suspension. Same with all of the other professional sports; intent doesn't play a role in the punishment, only the violation matters.

[Nastaboi]

So you are proposing 6 month suspension every time someone resolves Brainstorm incorrectly?

[Arsenal]

So you are proposing 6 month suspension every time someone resolves Brainstorm incorrectly?

No, but certainly more than a shoulder shrug and "whoops, our bad" should occur.

[Nastaboi]

He had a warning for it and warnings are keeping tracked on a database. You players have ever accidentaly looked at extra cards, missed triggers or tried to play spells with wrong color of mana? Did you think that the warning you received was enough, or that more severe punishment should have been more appropriate for your potential cheating?

[mulder]

I've probably been playing longer than most of you guys here. Sure, i've played matches against friends where they forget to put two cards back with Brainstorm. But putting ONE card back, and forgetting the second? At this level? At such a crucial stage in the game? When you have almost no cards in your hand? I don't buy that for a second.

[Lemnear]

The community didn't "catch him cheating" either. What we can see on the video is incorrectly resolved Brainstorm, that could be either honest mistake or bold cheating, but we can't tell by just watching it. Did the community cross-examine the player and everyone involved? What has the community done to find out whether it was intentional or not? Called his mom and asked if he had a terrible childhood? I know that judges and investigations commitee did some work to find out whether he was cheating or not. Have some respect on judges, please.

To me, it looked like a honest brainfart. If one would cheat with Brainstorm, he wouldn't do it so that he explicity shows he's putting just one card back, right?

-snip-

What do you mean by that? Should judges apology for all Magic community that they have to disqualify two players? Would you have felt better, if there was just one disqualification within top 8 instead?

A Brainfart? Dood, he put his sole card on the table face down, drew 3, picked that one up, looked at it, put it on top of his Library while looking at it for several seconds, dropped it on top of his Library, put Brainstorm into the graveyard and proceeded ... I mean, seriously?

Hey, 2 Top8 DQ's would at least tell a Story about the numbers of cheaters on top tables. It's not the first time we saw a lot of shady things on top tables in MTG History.

[Esper3k]

Again, if a MLB player was caught with a banned substance in his system, but said "Whoops, I didn't know that sports drink contained that banned substance. It was never my intention to gain a competitive edge", he wouldn't just be able to walk away from that with a "Oh, you didn't mean to gain a competitive advantage? That's cool man, just don't do it again." No. He'd receive a 50 game suspension. Same with all of the other professional sports; intent doesn't play a role in the punishment, only the violation matters.

While intent doesn't play a role in punishment, it does play a role in the violation (just like in MTG - the difference between a warning offense and cheating is intent).

For example, in American Football, Intentional Grounding is an example of a violation where intent matters.

In our legal system, intent also matters. The difference between manslaughter and murder is dependent upon intent, for example.

Yes, there are some circumstances where intent is not taken into account, but there are plenty of examples in professional sports and real life where intent elevates the violation or penalty.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

It is neither the job of individual players nor the one of our community to determine whether or not he cheated. According to the DCI he did not. Accept it.

http://www.wizards.com/magic/magazine/article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/other/021202014b

Greetings

Weird, I thought there was a Magic playing community.

[uncletiggy]

To be honest between this and the bertucci shenanigans ill be announcing to all opponets that I require cards to be drawn individually rather then palmed and brainstorms to be clearly shown two cards returning. Its a real thing with brainstorm keeping track of cards in hand and on more then one occasion ive felt like it was resolved incorrectly but could not prove so

[lyracian]

To be honest between this and the bertucci shenanigans ill be announcing to all opponets that I require cards to be drawn individually rather then palmed and brainstorms to be clearly shown two cards returning. Its a real thing with brainstorm keeping track of cards in hand and on more then one occasion ive felt like it was resolved incorrectly but could not prove so
The rules already say that "Draw 3" is resolved as "Draw 1 three times"; you just need to confirm number of cards in hand when Brainstorm goes on the stack and again after it resolves.

[raudo]

I've probably been playing longer than most of you guys here. Sure, i've played matches against friends where they forget to put two cards back with Brainstorm. But putting ONE card back, and forgetting the second? At this level? At such a crucial stage in the game? When you have almost no cards in your hand? I don't buy that for a second.

Well. If that happened end of turn. I have seen mistakes in kitchen table games when you put only one back cause you just speed the game up. (You draw the second anyway). But surely see your point.

[lordofthepit]

Again, if a MLB player was caught with a banned substance in his system, but said "Whoops, I didn't know that sports drink contained that banned substance. It was never my intention to gain a competitive edge", he wouldn't just be able to walk away from that with a "Oh, you didn't mean to gain a competitive advantage? That's cool man, just don't do it again." No. He'd receive a 50 game suspension. Same with all of the other professional sports; intent doesn't play a role in the punishment, only the violation matters.

I follow baseball less than basketball, football, or track, but this analogy is still poor. There are prescribed penalties for taking banned substances, either intentionally or even by mistake (provided that you should reasonably have been aware). However, sports bodies such as the USATF certainly do consider other factors. Carl Lewis was cleared despite multiple positive tests for banned substances, allegedly because it was found in cough syrup. (Whether he did so intentionally and whether I believe his story is another matter entirely.)

There are also prescribed penalties for committing infractions in sports. An offsides in football results in a 5-yard penalty, a shooting foul in basketball results in free throws, etc. There are also penalties for game rules violations in Magic, and although I'm not a judge, the penalty for failing to properly resolve Brainstorm is exactly what was given retroactively to Dominguez: a warning on his record. As far as I know, this would have happened regardless of whether he resolved it illegally to his benefit or his detriment.

I would argue that these penalties are far too lenient if a competitor cheats intentionally to gain an advantage (I believe cheaters should be banned for life), but that they are reasonable otherwise. Occasionally, such mistakes are not caught by the players, judges, or spectators, and the offending player ends up gaining an unfair advantage. This is unfortunate, but missed calls happen in sports as well, except with no retroactive effort to correct the mistake besides an occasional apology (with the single exception of a December 19, 2007, game between the Miami Heat and the Atlanta Hawks). There is the potential for cheaters to repeatedly err to their benefit, and representing it under the guise of an accident, but this is why judges track such violations. I believe the way to address this issue is to punish a player harshly after establishing a history of such events (because I would presume they are cheating), rather than to suspend or disqualify everyone after every mistake.

The idea that intent is important is well-established in our legal systems, as well as in the sports to which you are trying to draw an analogy. Do you make contact with the player as you challenge his layup? A personal foul, with free throws awarded. Did you make no effort to go for the ball though? Flagrant 1. Try to take his head off, as retaliation for something done on the other end in a heated rivalry? Flagrant 2 and ejection, with likely suspension for multiple games, in addition to a hefty fine. Deliver a helmet-to-helmet hit to a receiver coming across the middle? Personal foul, 15 yards. Do this intentionally by targeting the receiver? Add a likely ejection and fine, with possible suspension. Is this part of a team-wide bounty system? Suspension for the entire year. I don't know why you think identifying intent is unique to Magic.

I'm still not sure whether Dominguez cheated. It certainly did look suspicious to me at first, given that he was in a disadvantageous situation where he could benefit by "digging deeper" on his Brainstorm. However, he would have to be especially reckless to do this intentionally immediately after a judge call on his opponent in a recorded match with thousands of viewers watching, especially to do so without any sleight of hand. Brainstorm may seem an easy card to resolve, but when you're tired after playing 16 rounds of Magic, you have to think of how to sequence your next few draws, considering that you want to flip your Delver, you may want to shuffle away blanks, you want to be able to protect against discard, etc. Anyone who claims these mistakes only occur (suspiciously) at high-profile matches between good players is sorely mistaken. I've seen plenty of such illegal misplays at my local game store by players of all skill levels without even fixing my attention on any particular match, but these games aren't recorded for a wide audience to carefully inspect. I certainly would not accuse everyone of cheating at a local weekly event.

I know it's popular to disparage the efforts of Wizards R&D and the DCI (we wouldn't be Magic players otherwise), but I'm going to assume the judges thoroughly went through his history and interviewed him as well as other players. Or at least I certainly hope they did. It still doesn't make up for the fact that all of us as fans of the game were robbed of an opportunity to see what would have happened if everything resolved correctly, but it's the best solution they have available for having discovered the error after the tournament was over.

[lordofthepit]

Again, if a MLB player was caught with a banned substance in his system, but said "Whoops, I didn't know that sports drink contained that banned substance. It was never my intention to gain a competitive edge", he wouldn't just be able to walk away from that with a "Oh, you didn't mean to gain a competitive advantage? That's cool man, just don't do it again." No. He'd receive a 50 game suspension. Same with all of the other professional sports; intent doesn't play a role in the punishment, only the violation matters.

I follow baseball less than basketball, football, or track, but this analogy is still poor. There are prescribed penalties for taking banned substances, either intentionally or even by mistake (provided that you should reasonably have been aware). However, sports bodies such as the USATF certainly do consider other factors. Carl Lewis was cleared despite multiple positive tests for banned substances, allegedly because it was found in cough syrup. (Whether he did so intentionally and whether I believe his story is another matter entirely.)

There are also prescribed penalties for committing infractions in sports. An offsides in football results in a 5-yard penalty, a shooting foul in basketball results in free throws, etc. There are also penalties for game rules violations in Magic, and although I'm not a judge, the penalty for failing to properly resolve Brainstorm is exactly what was given retroactively to Dominguez: a warning on his record. As far as I know, this would have happened regardless of whether he resolved it illegally to his benefit or his detriment.

I would argue that these penalties are far too lenient if a competitor cheats intentionally to gain an advantage (I believe cheaters should be banned for life), but that they are reasonable otherwise. Occasionally, such mistakes are not caught by the players, judges, or spectators, and the offending player ends up gaining an unfair advantage. This is unfortunate, but missed calls happen in sports as well, except with no retroactive effort to correct the mistake besides an occasional apology (with the single exception of a December 19, 2007, game between the Miami Heat and the Atlanta Hawks). There is the potential for cheaters to repeatedly err to their benefit, and representing it under the guise of an accident, but this is why judges track such violations. I believe the way to address this issue is to punish a player harshly after establishing a history of such events (because I would presume they are cheating), rather than to suspend or disqualify everyone after every mistake.

The idea that intent is important is well-established in our legal systems, as well as in the sports to which you are trying to draw an analogy. Do you make contact with the player as you challenge his layup? A personal foul, with free throws awarded. Did you make no effort to go for the ball though? Flagrant 1. Try to take his head off, as retaliation for something done on the other end in a heated rivalry? Flagrant 2 and ejection, with likely suspension for multiple games, in addition to a hefty fine. Deliver a helmet-to-helmet hit to a receiver coming across the middle? Personal foul, 15 yards. Do this intentionally by targeting the receiver? Add a likely ejection and fine, with possible suspension. Is this part of a team-wide bounty system? Suspension for the entire year. I don't know why you think identifying intent is unique to Magic.

I'm still not sure whether Dominguez cheated. It certainly did look suspicious to me at first, given that he was in a disadvantageous situation where he could benefit by "digging deeper" on his Brainstorm. However, he would have to be especially reckless to do this intentionally immediately after a judge call on his opponent in a recorded match with thousands of viewers watching, especially to do so without any sleight of hand. Brainstorm may seem an easy card to resolve, but when you're tired after playing 16 rounds of Magic, you have to think of how to sequence your next few draws, considering that you want to flip your Delver, you may want to shuffle away blanks, you want to be able to protect against discard, etc. Anyone who claims these mistakes only occur (suspiciously) at high-profile matches between good players is sorely mistaken. I've seen plenty of such illegal misplays at my local game store by players of all skill levels without even fixing my attention on any particular match, but these games aren't recorded for a wide audience to carefully inspect. I certainly would not accuse everyone of cheating at a local weekly event.

I know it's popular to disparage the efforts of Wizards R&D and the DCI (we wouldn't be Magic players otherwise), but I'm going to assume the judges thoroughly went through his history and interviewed him as well as other players. Or at least I certainly hope they did. It still doesn't make up for the fact that all of us as fans of the game were robbed of an opportunity to see what would have happened if everything resolved correctly, but it's the best solution they have available for having discovered the error after the tournament was over.

[HSCK]

Weird, I thought there was a Magic playing community.

Weird, I thought there was a part of the community dedicated to upholding rules and making sure tournaments are run and whatnot. I wish there was some sort of official system for these tasks or something.

I want to see players judge each other and see if anyone is left not DQ-ed after round one.