Calling cdr; some interactions to be confirmed.

[Julian23]

Hey guys, so here are some situations that came up during the Ovinogeddon tournament. I called out my opponent's on several infringements on the rules and it was always ruled in my favour. However, we had a disagreement about whether the judges actually correctly ruled in my favour. Just to clarify, it would be could if an authority on the rules (like cdr) could confirm everything was ruled correctly:


Yixlid Jailor + Snapcaster Mage: I cast Snapcaster Mage with Yixlid Jailor in play. I use it to flashback a card. Head judge rules in my favour. Correct?

Chain of Vapor: My opponent casts Chain of Vapor on one of his cards. We both agree that Chain of Vapor is resolving now; during the resolution he taps his Underground Sea and then wants to sacrifice it as part of the effect of Chain of Vapor. I call him out on his missplay, head judge rules in my favour. Correct?

Burnspells on player/Planeswalker shortcut: We discussed this one in theory and it became apparent that people didn't know how this works. Pointing your Lightning Bolt at Jace, the Mind Sculptor is a commonly accepted shortcut. A friend of mine argued that you could deviate from that shortcut at any time without telling your opponent. The example he provided was first pointing your burnspells directly at Jace; later you would cast one and target your opponent and during the resolution announce that you want to redirect to Jace. My point is that this is not possible if you don't first inform your opponent about deviating from the previously established shortcut.

Thanks for your clarification.

[iamajellydonut]

Yixlid Jailor + Snapcaster Mage: I cast Snapcaster Mage with Yixlid Jailor in play. I use it to flashback a card. Head judge rules in my favour. Correct?

Correct. Snapcaster Mage is the most recent and therefore wins.



Chain of Vapor: My opponent casts Chain of Vapor on one of his cards. We both agree that Chain of Vapor is resolving now; during the resolution he taps his Underground Sea and then wants to sacrifice it as part of the effect of Chain of Vapor. I call him out on his missplay, head judge rules in my favour. Correct?

Correct. Not sure of any way to elaborate. He simply could have made it work properly but chose not to.



Burnspells on player/Planeswalker shortcut: We discussed this one in theory and it became apparent that people didn't know how this works. Pointing your Lightning Bolt at Jace, the Mind Sculptor is a commonly accepted shortcut. A friend of mine argued that you could deviate from that shortcut at any time without telling your opponent. The example he provided was first pointing your burnspells directly at Jace; later you would cast one and target your opponent and during the resolution announce that you want to redirect to Jace. My point is that this is not possible if you don't first inform your opponent about deviating from the previously established shortcut.

"Theory" is about where this begins and ends. Any way you put it, it's a dick move. But if you want my opinion, and what I think it closest to fact...

If Player A casts Lightning Bolt and says "Jace, the Mind Sculptor", it's assumed that the Lightning Bolt is resolving and that the damage is being redirected to Jace, the Mind Sculptor. If either player decides to do anything after the immediate naming, the "contract" is null.

If Player A casts Lightning Bolt and silently points at Jace, the Mind Sculptor or silently points at Player B, it means absolutely nothing.

[Julian23]

If Player A casts Lightning Bolt and silently points at Jace, the Mind Sculptor or silently points at Player B, it means absolutely nothing.

Rulewise, there's no difference how you communicate your choices as long as they are clear to both players.

[iamajellydonut]

Rulewise, there's no difference how you communicate your choices as long as they are clear to both players.

And non-verbal statements have proven time and time again to not be clear. As I said, it's theory and my opinion. But whenever someone comes up with a "he said she said", the pantomiming always presents the largest hassle. How many times have you seen someone crack a fetch, ask for a response, get a non-verbal reply, and then have a judge come over because "that gesture was not me saying "ok"."?

[Julian23]

And non-verbal statements have proven time and time again to not be clear. As I said, it's theory and my opinion. But if someone ever came up with a "he said she said", I'd choose the person who vocalized their intentions over the guy who pantomimed.

I didn't they they were. The disagreement is not about what the players said; what you are talking about is completly unrelated to the question in the first place.

[iamajellydonut]

I didn't they they were. The disagreement is not about what the players said; what you are talking about is completly unrelated to the question in the first place.

Sorry, I'm at work and distracted. As soon as I hit the submit button I realized what I had typed and regretted it. For reference, here's what I edited in after the fact...

"How many times have you seen someone crack a fetch, ask for a response, get a non-verbal reply, and then have a judge come over because "that gesture was not me saying "ok"."?"

My point being that a non-verbal signal has rarely, if ever, been considered to be a concrete assent to anything, and I don't think it's any different here. Dick move? Absolutely. But it doesn't mean anything.

[Julian23]

My point being that a non-verbal signal has rarely, if ever, been considered to be a concrete assent to anything, and I don't think it's any different here. Dick move? Absolutely. But it doesn't mean anything.

I'm still puzzled. The question is not about non-verbal signals. It's about deviating from a previously established shortcut. The interaction between Jace and Lightning Bolt is usually used as the prime example for this.

[iamajellydonut]

I'm still puzzled. The question is not about non-verbal signals. It's about deviating from a previously established shortcut. The interaction between Jace and Lightning Bolt is usually used as the prime example for this.

Again, opinions, but unless it was discussed and agreed upon beforehand (in which case it would still be flimsy), there is no previously established shortcut. There are only habits and assumptions.

There was a post someone made a while ago in a thread I forget, but I think it raises a good point. Player A puts a Thoughtseize on the table and begins to tap his Underground Sea. While he's doing so, Player B reveals his hand. Player A then reveals his hand and discards a Griselbrand and Reanimates it.

Who's in the wrong here? It's up to the judge, but even had Player A been hurling discard at his opponent's face all match long, Player A would almost certainly be in the right as it would be incredibly difficult to prove the necessary malicious intent.

[cdr]

Yixlid Jailor + Snapcaster Mage: I cast Snapcaster Mage with Yixlid Jailor in play. I use it to flashback a card. Head judge rules in my favour. Correct?

613.1. The values of an object's characteristics are determined by starting with the actual object. For a card, that means the values of the characteristics printed on that card. For a token or a copy of a spell or card, that means the values of the characteristics defined by the effect that created it. Then all applicable continuous effects are applied in a series of layers in the following order:
...
613.1f. Layer 6: Ability-adding effects, ability-removing effects, and effects that say an object can't have an ability are applied.
...
613.2. Within layers 1-6, apply effects from characteristic-defining abilities first (see rule 604.3), then all other effects in timestamp order (see rule 613.6). Note that dependency may alter the order in which effects are applied within a layer. (See rule 613.7.)

Layers, then CDAs within layer, then timestamps within layer. Ability-adding and ability-removing are the same layer, so timestamps. (Goes a long way towards understanding Humility too. Humility = layer rules test.)


Chain of Vapor: My opponent casts Chain of Vapor on one of his cards. We both agree that Chain of Vapor is resolving now; during the resolution he taps his Underground Sea and then wants to sacrifice it as part of the effect of Chain of Vapor. I call him out on his missplay, head judge rules in my favour. Correct?

Obviously sacrificing Sea during resolution is correct (though per tournament rules you can announce early that you are sacrificing and you're locked into that choice unless an opponent responds), but also obviously you can't randomly tap stuff while a spell is resolving. Announcing the spell and that you're tapping Sea and sacrificing Sea would be OK; announcing the spell and tapping Sea and then letting the spell resolve would be OK; waiting for the spell to resolve and then trying to tap Sea is not.


Burnspells on player/Planeswalker shortcut: We discussed this one in theory and it became apparent that people didn't know how this works. Pointing your Lightning Bolt at Jace, the Mind Sculptor is a commonly accepted shortcut. A friend of mine argued that you could deviate from that shortcut at any time without telling your opponent. The example he provided was first pointing your burnspells directly at Jace; later you would cast one and target your opponent and during the resolution announce that you want to redirect to Jace. My point is that this is not possible if you don't first inform your opponent about deviating from the previously established shortcut.

This gets into player communication, which hinges on the exact words, gestures, etc players used.

Physically pointing a burn spell at a planeswalker is certainly the same as announcing that you are going to redirect the damage to the planeswalker if the spell resolves; you are locked into that choice unless an opponent responds. If you do that and then try not to redirect, that is not going to work. This is slightly different than a player-established shortcut, this is one of the official shortcuts from the MTR.

If, however, you just place the spell on the table and say you're targeting the opponent, you are certainly not obliged to redirect even if you've redirected previous burn spells. Nor are you obliged to not redirect.

You're obliged to announce you're deviating from a shortcut at the point the shortcut begins. In the first case, that point would be on announcement (since it's tacking the resolution of a spell onto the announcement). In the second case, there's not even a shortcut being used.

Here's the rule you're likely thinking of:
MTR 4.2 Tournament Shortcuts: ... A player may interrupt a tournament shortcut by explaining how he or she is deviating from it or at which point in the middle he or she wishes to take an action. A player may interrupt his or her own shortcut in this manner. A player is not allowed to use a previously undeclared tournament shortcut, or to modify an in-use tournament shortcut without announcing the modification, in order to create ambiguity in the game. ...

[Julian23]

Thanks for your clarifications :smile: