Goblin Guide. With the old rules I was obliged to announce the attack trigger, but with the new rules I'll just fish everytime I attack with. If the opponent doesn't call it and I don't want to see his top card, freeroll?
Now that's obviously cheating, but it's kinda hard to prove... "I was nervous!" and as you don't get punished for forgetting your triggers anymore.
Right?
No, it is not cheating. If your opponent attacks without announcing Exalted you can simply block and eat the creature for free. If he forgets a trigger (and you want him to forget it), the trigger is gone. Poof.
If, for some reason you want your opponent to remember his trigger (Dark Confidant the prime example) you can still force him to use it.
Seems like a huge waste of time. Given how much people bitch about SDT taking forever, I'm surprised no one has brought up the time factor. If you're playing Countertop, now instead if just announcing that you're topping in response to a spell, you're announcing the counterbalance trigger then responding to that. So you add an extra 3-5 seconds to every spell your opponent plays. Over the course of a game, that could be several minutes. Over the course of a match, it will definitely be several minutes. And god forbid you have to start announcing all your exalted triggers. This seems like it will make paper magic as unwieldy and lame as MTGO. Yes, shortcutting sometime benefits a bad player who would otherwise miss something. But it benefits both players by speeding the game along.
Current Decks with List:
http://magic.tcgplayer.com/db/deck_s...sult.asp?MDA=1
My Dream: The Dojo Comics and Games
http://www.gofundme.com/g754rg
Saying "Attack Exalted" instead of "Attack" doesn't really add even 1 second to a turn. Storm as will usually happen only once during a game. However, what's actually going to make me feel like the biggest douchebag in the entire world is "getting" my inexperienced opponents at local tournaments. I don't want that. On the other hand, there's duals and Mana Drains up for grabs.
What's gonna add the most "wasted" time is people discussing or not even being aware of the new rule in the first place.
Last edited by Julian23; 09-26-2012 at 07:28 PM.
The seven cardinal sins of Legacy:
1. Discuss the unbanning ofLand TaxEarthcraft.
2. Argue that banning Force of Will would make the format healthier.
3. Play Brainstorm without Fetchlands.
4. Stifle Standstill.
5. Think that Gaea's Blessing will make you Solidarity-proof.
6. Pass priority after playing Infernal Tutor.
7. Fail to playtest against Nourishing Lich (coZ iT wIlL gEt U!).
Like the above post. (we really need a like/star/flag/etc. system)
http://www.channelfireball.com/artic...gger-troubles/
At the Pro Tour, in round three, my opponent forgot to reveal his card for Dark Confidant. He called a judge, and the judge asked me if I wanted to place his trigger on the stack now after it had been missed—I said no and he left. I thought this was very strange. When I appealed, the head judge basically said the same thing, that Dark Confidant was a beneficial trigger because, “who in their right mind would put a 2/1 for 1B in their deck if they didn’t want his benefit?”
I found this very disconcerting—how can you say Dark Confidant is a beneficial trigger? It probably is if you’re at 15, but what if you have Emrakul in your deck and lethal on the table? Bob is likely a beneficial trigger when you’re at 20 and definitely not if you’re at 1, but what if you’re at 8? Who decides that?
I also don’t like that my opponent didn’t get a warning for this, not because I’m some kind of rules lawyer who wants all his opponents to rack up warnings, but rather because if you are going to say that Confidant is a beneficial trigger and not give a warning for his missed trigger, then if I have Confidant in my deck and I’m at 1, I should just ignore the trigger every turn.
Sounds like that judge was both out of date with the IPG and wrong. The distinctiong between lapsing ("beneficial") and non-lapsing triggers was abolished in September, and even if it hadn't been, Dark Confidant's would very clearly not fall in the strictly defined lapsing category.
YOU'RE GIVING ME A TIME MACHINE IN ORDER TO TREAT MY SLEEP DISORDER.
Let's leave lapsing out of it. However, whether a trigger is detrimental or not *is* something we care about now. Players missing a detrimental trigger receive a Warning. Players missing a non-detrimental (beneficial) trigger do not receive a penalty. If a judge observes a Missed Trigger where the opponent does not call you over, and the player does not receive a penalty, the judge should not intervene. This is the principle reason why we ignore the game state when determining whether a trigger is detrimental: the judge having to stop the match and investigate will tip the player off to their trigger.
The judge at the time is correct. Dark Confidant's trigger is non-detrimental, and therefore players do not receive a penalty for missing it. The opponent still has the choice of whether the trigger should go on the stack.
Incidentally the exact question from the article (who determines when Dark Confidant's trigger is good for you and when it is bad for you) is why Dark Confidant's trigger doesn't stop being beneficial when the opponent is at "low" life. Is a trigger beneficial or not is a strict "is this an upside or a downside?" question. Chalice of the Void triggering on your spells is obviously bad for you, but the triggered ability on Chalice of the Void is something you want to have happen; without that ability, the card is literally blank.
tl;dr: Nihil Credo calling the judge "both out of date with the IPG and wrong" was both out of date with the IPG and wrong.
Sorry, couldn't resist ;)
Just curious, but why is Dark Confidant's trigger considered non-detrimental even though there is a (what many would consider) detrimental component to it?
I'm just wondering what is the definition for detrimental that's being used in these cases to define triggers?
Thanks!
There are a number of good rules of thumb (but they are rules of thumb, not hard and fast rules):
*) Would you play this card without this ability?
*) Does this ability make the card cost more or less?
*) Is this ability an upside or a drawback?
The compensation for a player missing a beneficial trigger when it would be bad for them is the opponent still gets the choice, if it's within a turn, to put it on the stack. And if it's a case where we believe the player did not actually forgot the trigger, we can intervene, even when it's beneficial. "So you never missed a Dark Confidant trigger, but then when you were at 1, you somehow 'forgot'?"
It's fine :) I did a ctrl-F for both "Beneficial" and "lapsing" in the IPG and only found the 'No more lapsing abilities' in the changelog. Turns out the new Missed Trigger section talks about 'generally considered detrimental' instead, so I choose to blame them for their otherwise reasonable vocabulary choices.
That said, having seen the relevant paragraph, I find it a bit odd that the guidelines at the same time both (a) rely on the judge to decide if the ability is detrimental or not, instead of providing a list or strict criteria and (b) explicitly instruct the judge not to factor in the game state. If you're going to trust them to make the call of whether, say, Howling Banshee's trigger is 'detrimental' or not, then why not also trust them to tell a non-detrimental Confidant flip from a detrimental Confidant flip?
YOU'RE GIVING ME A TIME MACHINE IN ORDER TO TREAT MY SLEEP DISORDER.
A) I have no idea how to tell when a Confidant flip is a good thing or a bad thing. What if you're at 1, but you Brainstormed LED to the top of your library last turn and I didn't see it? Making it game state dependent would cause these weird situations where different judges will disagree and radically alter the outcome of the match based on their own risk adverseness? That seems bad. Plus, the previous note about having to investigate the game state will tip off players to a trigger they missed.
B) I explicitly emphasize the detrimental and non-detrimental terminology for this very reason
C) Detrimental or not is not really intended to be a judgment call, any more than lapsing was. Lapsing did show us the downside of having a long list of criteria to memorize. The biggest areas of confusion we had with lapsing were attempting to cover the weird cases like this, where what we generally understand to be non-detrimental could in some .00001% case be bad for you. Once out of every thousand matches or so someone killed themselves with Glimpse of Nature does not make Glimpse of Nature's trigger bad for you.
Suppose you're at five life with Bob in play and the top card of your library costs three. Is it detrimental to "forget" the Bob trigger? You won't die if you reveal, but going to two life could be an issue. What if your opponent has Lightning Bolt or a haste creature in hand? Does the judge consider that? Revealing to Bob then would be detrimental since you would die to the burn/haste guy. But if your opponent has no follow-up to punish you for being at two life, it isn't necessarily a bad thing to get your extra card...
So what should a judge take into consideration? The detrimental nature of the Bob trigger here hinges on hidden information, supposing there isn't, say, a Grim Lavamancer or something in play. And even if there isn't, analyzing the board state to figure out if the Bob trigger is truly a detriment could take too long and is prone to errors or argument. It's better to just call it in a vacuum, I guess.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)