Recently, I had an opponent that cast a pact on my turn. Then during his upkeep, we both don't say anything and he touches the card on top of his library slowly. He then slowly moves the card slowly from library to his hand but does not see what he's drawing. When he finally puts the drawn card in his hand, tell him that he's forgotten the pact trigger during upkeep and lost the game.
The question I have here is what is the earliest time my opponent can be considered to have moved to his draw step in this situation here? Is it when he's touching the top card on the library? Is it when he's moving the card from library to hand but hasn't seen it? Or is it when the card is put into his hand?
Well this is hard to rule as this depends on previous behavior.
I'd consider anybody moved to the draw step when he's interacting with the top card of his library. Not touching but moving it away from the stack of cards that is the library.
I would say only when the card is placed in hand.
It's pretty suspicious to remove the top card of your library from the rest of the pile. You aren't allowed to do that just whenever you feel like it. You can only do that when you're in the process of drawing a card. I think that once someone starts doing that then the upkeep is over.
By the rules, a card is drawn when it touches your hand. In order for him to have missed the trigger, he would have to unambiguously moved to his draw step. The clearest line is the point at which he draws the card, although I think I would also rule that he forgot the trigger if he starts to look at the card for turn. If you're looking to "get" your opponent, wait until he has clearly put it in his hand (or you could remind him before!).Originally Posted by pocari79
If he's continuing to play at his normal pace, starts to take top card off his library, maybe put it on the playmat without looking at it, then say "Pay for Pact", I'm pretty confident I would allow that. People sequence untapping, upkeeping, and drawing slightly out of whack all the time.
Languages and dates for every set. For all you true pimps.
I don't think that's in the comprehensive rules. There are also cards that require you to look at the top card(s) of your deck on your upkeep (delver of secrets, sensei's divining Top). You can't do that without them touching your hand.
My web site, www.TheWorldExposed.com
Your 'hand' in the MTG term, not the anatomical term.
West side
Find me on MTGO as Koby or rukcus -- @MTGKoby on Twitter
* Maverick is dead. Long live Maverick!
My Legacy stream
My MTG Blog - Work in progress
The comp rules are not concerned with physical play mechanics such as when a card is considered drawn - that's a question for the MTR or IPG. In this case, it's in the IPG:
2.2. Game Play Error — Looking at Extra Cards
Definition
A player looks at a card they were not entitled to see. Players are considered to have looked at a card when they have been able to observe the face of a hidden card, or when a card is moved any significant amount from a deck, but before it touches the other cards in their hand.
Since LaE is anything before the card touches other cards, drawing is when it touches.
“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
But when did a player move from upkeep to draw phase? Certainly not when the player moved the card completely from his library to his hand as the intention of drawing starts way earlier.
At a regular or competitive REL in particular, I can't imagine a judge declaring that a player's violation of Rule 2.2 equates to moving to the draw step in the OP's scenario.
Drawing the card serves as the best indicator of an intention to enter the draw step in OP's scenario.
Trying to argue "Gotcha!" to a judge when there is a shred of ambiguity is not likely to work.
When there is a clear indication they have exited the upkeep. Drawing a card is the first thing that happens in the draw step, so it is the most common indication. If they ask something like "Draw?" that is also a clear indication that they are passing priority in the upkeep.
“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. Over the past 2 years, judge policy has consistently moved away from rewarding Gotcha!-type rules lawyering. Or...at least they've attempted to. Judges in general have little sympathy for trying to mise your opponent.
Languages and dates for every set. For all you true pimps.
I don't know why they should. If a chess player 'forgets' the position of one of his opponents pieces causing him to lose the game, he would have played bad. I can't see why forgetting mandatory triggers is any different.
I think it's not a Gotcha situation when it's clear that someone forgot to pay the pact. By the rules of the game, that player should lose. It's Gotcha when the opponent tries to argue an inference (forgot the trigger / began the draw step) based on conduct (touching the top card of library) that is not mandated by the rules of the game -- in fact Rules 2.2 and 2.3 suggest that no such inference (begin draw step) should be made from the described conduct (touching top card of library) because touching the top card of your library is not a violation of Rule 2.3 (drawing a card). Drawing a card is a clear indication of a player's intent to begin the draw step. And if that player did not intend to begin the draw step, they should get a game loss for violating Rule 2.3 (drawing a card).
I definitely think it's a reasonable inference that the Pact player forgot to pay for the pact when the player touched the top card of his library. But it's not the only possible inference. A player could still be thinking about how to pay upkeep costs while touching the top card of his library, though doing so is a violation of Rule 2.2. You simply should not get a death penalty sanction (game loss) unless it's unambiguously clear you were violating a rule of the game mandating that sanction.
This is a horrible analogy. Those two things are absolutely nothing alike. Chess is not a game of hidden information, the pieces don't do unique things, there are no unique interactions, there are no triggers, and there is nothing to miss.
There's a several hundred page comprehensive rulebook for Magic: The Gathering, the rules for Chess can fit on a napkin. Rules lawyering was always a douchey thing to do, it's still sort of a douchey thing to do, and it's nice that it's going away more and more.
So a player with a pact trigger takes the top card of their library and sets it face down in front of them without having seen it.
2.2.
Game Play Error
—
Looking at Extra Cards
Definition
A player looks at a card they were not entitled to see. Players are considered to have looked at a card when they have been able to observe the face of a hidden card, or when a card is moved any significant amount from a deck, but before it touches the other cards in their hand. This includes errors of dexterity or catching a play error before the card is placed into his or her hand. Once a card has been placed into his or her hand or if a player takes a game action after removing the card from the library, the offense is no longer Looking at Extra Cards.
A player is not considered to have looked at extra cards when he or she places a card face down on the table (without looking at the card) in an effort to count out cards he or she will draw.
This penalty is applied only once if one or more cards are seen in the same action or sequence of actions.
The IPG makes it clear that this common occurrence in tournament play is not looking at extra cards. However could they still be considered in the upkeep at that point?
I understand that once they put the card into their hand, they have either drawn for draw step and lost, or illegally drawn an extra card in upkeep, at which point they lose anyway.
But is that really the limit of unambiguity that is required?
Can I during my upkeep strip the top 3 card of my library and set them face down, then put them back in order, then draw for turn without penalty?
No, because now you're manipulating game materials without being prompted to do so, and for no reason whatsoever. This is suspicious.
Pulling the top card off the library and setting it face down indicates a turn's draw step. The new trigger rules allow a player to pull it off the deck, state and pay for the pact trigger, then continue to draw the face down card. As a judge I would inform the player to be careful with this maneuver.
West side
Find me on MTGO as Koby or rukcus -- @MTGKoby on Twitter
* Maverick is dead. Long live Maverick!
My Legacy stream
My MTG Blog - Work in progress
If their hand is also face down in front of them, and they move the face down as of yet drawn card to join their hand, but without seeing it, and with it still being able to be identified as the card drawn that turn. Is that a draw?
L1 checking in...
Personally if I was judging a comp event and an opponent removed the card from the top of their library and slid it towards them but never looked at or put the card into the hand they haven't entered the draw step.
"Drawing a card" and "Hand" have very specific meanings in Magic.
Drawing a card:
CR 120.1: A player draws a card by putting the top card of his or her library into his or her hand. This is done as a turn-based action during each player’s draw step. It may also be done as part of a cost or effect of a spell or ability.
Similarly, Hand:
CR 402.1: The hand is where a player holds cards that have been drawn. Cards can be put into a player’s hand by other effects as well. At the beginning of the game, each player draws a hand of seven cards. (See rule 103, “Starting the Game.”)
On Rearranging the Hand (ie put it down on the table):
CR 402.3: A player may arrange his or her hand in any convenient fashion and look at it as much as he or she wishes. A player can’t look at the cards in another player’s hand but may count those cards at any time.
So long as the player hasn't drawn the card (See CR 120.1) they can still pay the pact. I see no potential for abuse by the pact player. CR120.1 means that even if the hand is facedown (CR 402.3 permits this) the card is NOT drawn until the candidate card touches the hand.
Last edited by barcode; 05-29-2013 at 01:40 PM. Reason: Formatting and a note on rearranging the hand
What if the player isn't physically holding the cards? I know plenty of players will keep the hand laid out on the table (face down of course) during the game. What then?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Reply With Quote