From a tournament report by Michael Brady (Merfolk vs ANT):
"After playing a couple Lotus Petals and a Lion’s Eye Diamond, he cast an Infernal Tutor with one card in hand and looked at me questioningly. I knew what he was up to, but I wasn’t falling for it. I figured he had another Infernal Tutor in hand and was hoping that I was a bad player that would Force of Will the first copy so he could play the second one. Instead, I asked “Are you passing priority?” at which point he frowned and activated Lion’s Eye Diamond pitching the Infernal Tutor in his hand.."
The ANT player is clearly fishing for free information, and his intention is to not pass priority (unless the opponent quickly slams a counterspell on the table). Also, if the Merfolk player had said "it resolves" the ANT player would probably have responded with "before I pass priority, I crack LED" or something similar. So, is this kind of behaviour acceptable? Is it okay to pretend that you pass priority when you really don't, and isn't it obligatory to specifically state that you wish to retain priority if that is your intention?
I don't agree. From that description, it's clear that ANT was implicitly passing priority.Originally Posted by kikoo
I'm not sure what sort of behavior you mean, but I again don't agree that ANT would have tried to retain priority. From the description, it sounds like ANT passed priority in the hopes that Merfolk would FoW. Merfolk asking to clarify the implicit pass is ok, though probably Merfolk should've just held him to the pass and made Infernal Tutor resolve.Also, if the Merfolk player had said "it resolves" the ANT player would probably have responded with "before I pass priority, I crack LED" or something similar. So, is this kind of behaviour acceptable?
No, you can't try to retain priority when you passed it, whether you passed it implicitly or explicitly. If you pause for any legnth of time, especially if it's long enough for your opponent to react, you have passed priority. You do need to explicitly retain priority during your previous action if you wish to retain it. Any halfway decent judge will uphold the priority pass if called in such a situation.
“It's possible. But it involves... {checks archives} Nature's Revolt, Opalescence, two Unstable Shapeshifters (one of which started as a Doppelganger), a Tide, an animated land, a creature with Fading, a Silver Wyvern, some way to get a creature into play in response to stuff, some way to get a land into play in response to stuff (a different land from the animated land), and one heck of a Rube Goldberg timing diagram.”
-David DeLaney
In my opinion this exact situation remains a key problem in the rules. It's clear that casting a spell then looking at your opponent questioningly for a few seconds implies passing priority. But as there's no real way to prove this in front of a judge you would always have to fall back on actually asking whether he passed priority or not which a) gives away information that you might actually be responding to it or b) might remind your opponent that he should not pass priority.
When I would be given the priority-passing, questioningly look I would just let the spell resolve and when he tries to go back I would TOTALLY be in his face about it, calling judges from all over the place. This kind of behavior should not be tolerated as the clear intention is to bend the rules in your favor.
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!).
You don't have to prove anything. You: "He looked for a reaction from me after playing his spell." Judge to opponent: "Is that correct?" Opponent: "Well, yes, but..." Judge: "Then you passed priority."
Simple. If your opponent wants to lie about it, which hopefully shouldn't happen very often, that's a different issue.
“It's possible. But it involves... {checks archives} Nature's Revolt, Opalescence, two Unstable Shapeshifters (one of which started as a Doppelganger), a Tide, an animated land, a creature with Fading, a Silver Wyvern, some way to get a creature into play in response to stuff, some way to get a land into play in response to stuff (a different land from the animated land), and one heck of a Rube Goldberg timing diagram.”
-David DeLaney
Yeah, if he doesn't lie about it everything's fine. But unless we're in a small, local tournament where those things shouldn't happen anyway he might always just say something along the lines of "Well, I was about to state that I wanted to keep priority but my opponent just said 'ok resolves'.". Nothing really you can do about that unless you got a witness by chance on the next table.
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!).
That would be your opponent lying, and that's a different issue. In that case you take the judge aside and tell the judge that your opponent is lying, and hopefully your opponent gets DQed if he really is being dishonest.
I've answered an awful lot of calls, and very rarely do people lie that blatantly. If it was as clear that he was passing priority as in what was quoted in the first post, you shouldn't have much of a problem. Where things get messy is when neither player is very clear about what's happening.
“It's possible. But it involves... {checks archives} Nature's Revolt, Opalescence, two Unstable Shapeshifters (one of which started as a Doppelganger), a Tide, an animated land, a creature with Fading, a Silver Wyvern, some way to get a creature into play in response to stuff, some way to get a land into play in response to stuff (a different land from the animated land), and one heck of a Rube Goldberg timing diagram.”
-David DeLaney
This is very interesting to me, cdr. I was a judge for about 6 years, and I found myself occasionally in a spot where two people have two different stories about stuff like this.
"He tapped his creatures for attack before giving me a chance to Plow his Piledriver." "No, I didn't. I asked if you had any effects before I declared attackers."
I found myself in a very gray area of trying to determine who, if anyone was lying. Now, it is true that probing for misunderstandings of either rules or intentions goes a long way, but I was always frightened of the possibility that a player whom I did not know personally could con his way out of these scenarios. My point is that I really don't know if that ever happened or how often. In an large affair, a warning in round 3 can come back to prevent a kid from trying this again in round 8, but the rules just don't seem to have any way of handling a very good liar in a small tournament.
"Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job."
"Politicians are like diapers. They should be changed often and for the same reason."
"Governing is too important to be left to people as silly as politicians."
"Politicians were mostly people who'd had too little morals and ethics to stay lawyers."
How would you expect a rule to be able to handle a liar? You can't.
When two players disagree on what happened in a situation, most of the time neither of them is lying. One of them is more confused than the other, or missed more than the other, or whatever.
“It's possible. But it involves... {checks archives} Nature's Revolt, Opalescence, two Unstable Shapeshifters (one of which started as a Doppelganger), a Tide, an animated land, a creature with Fading, a Silver Wyvern, some way to get a creature into play in response to stuff, some way to get a land into play in response to stuff (a different land from the animated land), and one heck of a Rube Goldberg timing diagram.”
-David DeLaney
Just to clear up something I don't understand very clearly. In the case of using LED and having a spell out (like Infernal Tutor), when you play the Tutor you must also sac the LED(s) at that moment?
From the above conversation it sounds like, if you don't, then priority gets passed and you now have your tutored spells in hand + un'saced LED(s) on the table.
You don't have to sac LED at that exact moment, but you do have to at least be very clear that you're retaining priority. If you give your opponent any chance to react without explicitly retaining priority, you've passed it. Something like "Infernal Tutor, sac LEDs in response" is a common and perfectly clear way to do it.
MTR 4.2 Tournament Shortcuts
...
Whenever a player adds an object to the stack, he or she is assumed to be passing priority unless he or she explicitly announces that he or she intends to retain it. If he or she adds a group of objects to the stack without explicitly retaining priority and a player wishes to take an action at a point in the middle, the actions should be reversed up to that point.
“It's possible. But it involves... {checks archives} Nature's Revolt, Opalescence, two Unstable Shapeshifters (one of which started as a Doppelganger), a Tide, an animated land, a creature with Fading, a Silver Wyvern, some way to get a creature into play in response to stuff, some way to get a land into play in response to stuff (a different land from the animated land), and one heck of a Rube Goldberg timing diagram.”
-David DeLaney
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Reply With Quote