Unfortunately judges can and do make mistakes. Maybe the requirements for being a level 1 are too low, and the judge promos are too tempting a prize.Originally Posted by Arsenal
I think the biggest thing is the deep seeded emotional understanding that the right play is the right play regardless of outcomes. The ability to make a decision 5 straight times, lose 5 times because of it, and still make it the 6th time if it's the right play. - Jon Finkel
"Notions of chance and fate are the preoccupation of men engaged in rash undertakings."
I've never heard of a judge tell a player "because you didn't physically pick up your deck fast enough, you do not get to resolve your spell". That has nothing to do with misinterpreting Oracle text or Comp. Rules that are common mistakes that judges make, that just sounds so far out of the realm of reason that I have a hard time believing that was said.
There's a big difference between coaching a good play and intentionally making a bad one.
So it looks more and more like the biggest contributor to this scene is the judge, who (a) left Rock with the impression that speed > passing priority (b) reinforced that decision by losing the context of the actions that were taken and choosing to give a warning instead of a GL.
So when judges make bad calls we should all act like the rules of the game just changed? Usually in a game of Magic you have to pass priority to resolve things, but if a judge seems to say "just play your effects faster than your opponent can acknowledge", then we should start playing MtG: Battlegrounds? The fuck?
I'm not even talking about a moral standpoint right now, or some bad ruling on a Humility-in-play battlefield or other complex gamestate; we all know what passing priority is supposed to do, it's one of the building blocks of the game. And yeah also there are conflicting reports about what players were saying/doing, and "when is OK not 'yes that resolves' and when it is 'OK thinking…' and and" etc. So clearly there are a ton of intangibles here, but the thing that's certain from both reports is that a player did decide to try and speed-play with the intent of just resolving things under a Chalice.
I mean it's fuzzy now, right, because a line of play was allowed that was maybe incorrect, but the rules didn't change, just someone made a bad call. How many sporting events has the ref blown a call, and then do the players proceed to just repeat that action throughout the game on the basis that "it must be the rules now"? It seems like that's what happened here, and I don't think that's a very good thing.so I go to start drawing cards, and then my opponent says "wait chalice!" and I look to the judge nexto me, who was watching our games because we were the last match, and say "he said ok, so do I get to resolve brainstorm?" and the judge says "No because you didn't pick up your deck fast enough." This infuriated me because 1. Magic is not a dexterity game and 2. My opponent using the same terminology that we had been using the entire match implied that my spell resolved, and only when I grabbed for my deck with brainstorm then on the stack, did he cry out. I then ask the judge why my speed for reaching for my deck determined if the spell resolved, and asked him if I had reached for it faster then it would have resolved? The judge then backtracks and comes up with a reason he realizes is part of the tournament procedure guidelines rather than his intuitive perception, and says that "ok" on the part of my opponent isn't sufficient reason for a spell to resolve. This is completely accurate, however we had been using the same terminology the entire match, and only when my opponent slipped up did they then take advantage of it. My opponent of course, realizing they could lose the match (as we were in game 3) insists that they were just "acknowledging the spell" with ok, and hadn't decided to resolve their chalice trigger or not. Complete bullshit.
Thirdly, The crop rotation that I resolve through chalice in the next few turns was the same situation, where I announce it, he says "ok" so I jump for my deck. Since the judge is now ruling on MTG being a dexterity based game, I am going to follow the judge's rulings. Always adhere to what the Head Judge demands, even if it is wrong.
It sounds like the judge was trying to say that because he didn't already resolve brainstorm, it was possible to back the game up, but it was then twisted by Rock Lee to mean that he didn't resolve it fast enough.
Then later with crop rotation, he figured he should resolve it as quickly as possible to make it impossible to back up.
Wait, people can let resolve spells through a Chalice of the Void if the opponent says "resolves"? What a retarded loophole, sometimes Paper is just dumb...
Humphrey is always correct.
I agree, but what else can you do? At least the current system doesn't punish you if your opponent misses their triggers. The old system made it a liability to play inexperienced players, and worked even less well.
It's not perfect, but it is feasible.
Couldn't they change the Oracle text of CotV so that it's not a triggered ability anymore?
Do you mean the bolded text?
Chalice does not change the rules of the game. It does not read "you cannot play spells at cost x" but instead "counter spells at cost x". Nothing prevents either player from casting Brainstorm or chain of vapor into a chalice set to 1.
A trigger that would change the rules of the game would be [card]Legion loyalist[/card]'s battalion trigger. With the above bullet point, your opponent does not have to demonstrate awareness that his creatures have first strike and trample until you try to block one of them with a batterskull token. It isn't until you declare the illegal block (illegal thanks to the rules generated by the loyalist) that they have to point out that you can't block that way. if you don't block with a token, they can neglect to mention that their attackers have trample and first strike until damage would be dealt, which is the last bullet point there that I've underlined.
Matt Bevenour in real life
Can a judge step in here for a second?
If Player A controls a Chalice on 1
Player B plays a brainstorm
Player A says "resolves"
Player B draws 1 card, and then Player A interrupts "wait, chalice."
Even if Player A missed his trigger AND said resolved, since it is mandatory, doesn't the game have to be rewound? Or do the new rules change that?
No it's too late. You opted to miss your trigger.
@Arsenal: That's a functional change, not a minor errata.
The conspiracy goes deeper than you might think.Can I pay you for not posting in this thread?
Missed trigger if player A was given adequate time to announce trigger or indicates being unaware of said trigger.
Correct me if I am wrong, but I'm confident in saying we don't back up because of a missed trigger anymore, ever.
Matt Bevenour in real life
I think you could still have CotV functions as intended (counter all spells with cmc = X), but reword it in such a way where it doesn't trigger. That way, you can still play spells into CotV to feed Goyf, build Storm, etc, but the CotV-controller doesn't need to constantly say, "Chalice counters it".
This has happened in an SCG - the only difference is that the player who controlled Chalice, just pointed to his Chalice after his opponent picked up his card, but before the BS player saw it.
You should always be on top of your game no matter what. You shouldn't rely on judges, rules, or erratas to make sure your opponent isn't cheating for the most part. Keep your eyes open, keep track of mana, land drops, cards drawn, cards in hand, ALL triggers, know the rules, keep your actions clear, clarify your opponent's actions, and may the best informed and most resourceful player win.
Morality is highly subjective and I wouldn't blame Rock Lee for playing to his outs given his situation. For some players, weeklies are as important as GPs and being perceived as a dick by some means different things to different people. Taking advantage of your opponent's mistakes (bad information, lack of experience) when your are abiding to the rules by following phases and passing priority can be as morally reprehensible as commendable. We all understand intentions but, as the mind, we have no way to know someone else's with empirical certainty. Everyone feels compelled to give their take on the situation but in the end we have a game with rules and human beings playing it. You can agree with them, try to change them, or fuck off.
If Rock Lee's spells were acknowledged to resolve (or under the impression so), and if rushing the game state to an irreversible state is a legal way to circumvent a missed Chalice trigger post-acknowledgement and his opponent doesn't pick up on Rock's strategy, then his opponent should fall prey to it. It is similar to showing up to a competitive event dressed as a clown in an attempt to throw your opponent off. To some it may appear morally repugnant or inappropriate, but to others it is a stroke of genius and a bold maneuver. In the end, as long as there are no rules against it, I wish you the best of luck in grinding out incremental advantages. From an optimistic point of view, Rock displayed a form of "thinking outside the box". From a pessimistic point of view, Rock tried to squeeze his way through the rule book's grey areas.
But yeah... if he didn't receive acknowledgement for his spell (AKA: didn't pass priority), then the story ends there... he would have cheated.
Personally, I try (consciously) to play in weeklies as I would in large events. I like competitive environments and I enjoy learning and teaching through trial and error. I think we all play games for fun at first sight, but once we get deeper into any game, we feel compelled to compete and that's where you start reaping different benefits, when you start putting effort. Here is a little example of controversial things that I impose on my Legacy community:
-I FoW a SnT.
-He Misdirects, ditching a Ponder.
-I ask what does he Misdirect.
-He states that he misdirects my FoW to counter my FoW (itself).
-I tell him the play isn't legal.
-He calls a judge.
-I know the play he is trying to make (redirect my FoW onto his Misdirection, thus allowing his SnT to resolve) but I also know the judge isn't allowed to coach him and should only tell him what I told him: that the play isn't legal.
-The judge does his job and tells him the play isn't legal.
-We leave it at that and I counter his SnT
I can tell my opponent my train of thought and how I think he should have played it during the match, afterwards, or not at all. Whatever I choose to do and however he chooses to perceive me is up to us. Some were watching with disdain, others with awe. There is a difference here between feeling cheated and being cheated. As far as the rules go, none were broken and Magic was played.
Do you know what assuming does? It makes an ass out of you and me.
Get it...? Ass, u, me?
... ffs I was trying to be funny...
I think you are confusing Jedi Mind Tricks with straight up cheating.
It's not a jedi mind trick, it's somebody not understanding their own card.
Team Hammafist-We don't take kindly to those who don't take kindly."Got any trade boogas?"
I've been following this thread for a bit now and the solution to dealing with all of this is very simple. I'll explain my view with cheating first though. To me cheating or using cheap tricks, for one, lacks honor. Second, cheating to me is akin to stealing. I have a very straight up, "in your face" way of life. I'm upfront in everything I do and despise those who aren't. The judges only control what's in their little arena and that's it. I've used my way of dealing with things when I have an opponent that resorts to going to such an extent to win. Has anyone on this site ever heard of a straight ass whoopin? To me, you cheat, it's an open invitation to get your teeth kicked in outside of whatever venue you're in. I don't mind losing and I will never use tricks or cheat to prevent myself from losing. It lacks honor and secretes disrespect. Just a small view from an Infantry Soldier.
"I didn't come here looking for a fight but if you're gonna bark boy then ya better show some bite."
Where do these all violent kick ass types come from? I'd play against cheater anyday if other option is person who is willing to hurt others over card game.
If you want to fist fight someone because they cheated you in magic cards I would honestly laugh in your face. The idea of you camping outside of a convention center or card store and waiting to beat somebody up is pretty darn ridiculous.
Guess I've been very lucky to play against only respectful and honest opponents or I've been too distracted to notice their (potential) cheating.
Pox
Imperial Painter
Team America
Give one example of a time you have actually used "your way of dealing with things". Wait never mind im sure it would just be some made up internet tough guy stuff instead.
Please explain the honorable part of lurking in the bushes outside you LGS waiting to pound the living crap out of the twelve year old hearing impaired kid who drew an extra card or two at FNM and still lost cause he is playing 86 card fat pack jank against your $500 esper control deck. I guess straight up in your face way of life is just code for total asshole and proud of it.
Where there is only a choice between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence.
~ Mohandas Gandhi
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Reply With Quote
