SCG and its not-as-lousy-as-WotC coverage

[Arsenal]

It does work the same way as Melira.

Humility vs. Inkmoth does not work the same way as Melira vs. Inkmoth, although they're very similar. Under Humility, Inkmoth would have flying, would have Infect, but would deal regular damage; this is very different from Melira as Inkmoth would be a 1/1 flying, Infect dude, but doesn't do anything as Melira prevents poison to player and -1/-1 to creatures.

[nedleeds]

It does work the same way as Melira. Activating Inkmoth with an opponent's Melira on the field will still yield a 1/1 flying artifact creature with Infect. It just won't do anything because Melira prevents your opponent from getting poison counters or their creatures from getting -1/-1 counters.

Aren't Humility and Inkmoth's ability-giving effect both in layer 6, and thus applied in timestamp order?

Edit: Thus flying and infect.

[Tyrio]

Humility vs. Inkmoth does not work the same way as Melira vs. Inkmoth, although they're very similar. Under Humility, Inkmoth would have flying, would have Infect, but would deal regular damage; this is very different from Melira as Inkmoth would be a 1/1 flying, Infect dude, but doesn't do anything as Melira prevents poison to player and -1/-1 to creatures.

I mean they're similar in that both Humility and Melira operate on the same layer i.e. activating Inkmoth under either effect will still yield a flying Infect moth. It's just that a Humble Inkmoth will still deal poison counters while one cowed by Melira won't.

[Arsenal]

Sure, but that's my point in that they're very similar, so it's plausible that one could think Humility vs. Inkmoth will have the same end result as Melira vs. Inkmoth when they actually wouldn't. Again, it's completely plausible and believable that a player, even a "pro", doesn't fully grasp the interaction of Counterbalance vs. Morph or Humility vs. Inkmoth, or it could be that they think they do understand the interaction based on a previous, related experience (Melira vs. Inkmoth), when they're ultimately wrong.

[Megadeus]

If you get into a situation where you are unsure of the rules or something, call a judge. When I saw that CB Morph thing on the stream, I assumed it would need to be a 0 on top to counter it, but I wasn't sure. However I probably would have called a judge. I always do if I have any doubts. Like when my opponent was playing Painter Stone and I had a RIP. Or especially a Humility case since that card is a headache.

[Arsenal]

True. Definitely call a judge if you're unsure. But if you are sure that you're right (even though you're wrong and don't know it yet), why would you? It's very possible that BBD sided in Humility vs. Ross and thought "I'm 100% that this will work the way I want it to". We all know that it doesn't, but if that's the thought process, then calling a judge probably isn't something that you'd even think of doing.

[Megadeus]

True. Definitely call a judge if you're unsure. But if you are sure that you're right (even though you're wrong and don't know it yet), why would you? It's very possible that BBD sided in Humility vs. Ross and thought "I'm 100% that this will work the way I want it to". We all know that it doesn't, but if that's the thought process, then calling a judge probably isn't something that you'd even think of doing.

I didnt see the match, but did he lose because it didnt work like he wanted? I'm more thinking of the CB play. Also, what do the table judges even do? Like I know they are "spotters" or whatever, but they are still judges after all. They seem to miss A LOT.

[danyul]

I saw the match and Ross wasn't in a great spot even before the Morph was countered by CB. It's not clear that the 2/2 would have won him the game at all. But from what I can remember, there was a slight bit of confusion and the table judge eventually said that Morphs are CMC 3 on the stack. This was later corrected by someone on Twitter, but it was way too late to backup the gamestate. I can't quite remember. I'm trying to find the footage now. Does anybody remember if this was from the Invitational Swiss rounds on Saturday or from the Open on Sunday?

EDIT - Somebody linked it already. And it was Riley Curran, not Ross Merriam. My badz. There was no judge intervention. The players just did their thang.

Rd 15: Riley Curran v Brian Braun-Duin

[Megadeus]

It was in the Open I believe. Was like round 7-9ish.

[nedleeds]

The bald guy is at 6 and elf man has an arbor. It would be a good idea to at least try it and see if elf man fell for it if you were the cheating sort. I don't know any of these people thus I err on the side of cheating because money is involved. Note that revealing a 3 isn't cheating but allowing the morph to be countered and put in a graveyard for no reason is a GRV, and if intent could be proven then cheating. Like if earlier in the day the same player had a judge come explain the cmc of morph on the stack and said player was present a judge could make a case for cheating.

[Julian23]

This was later corrected by someone on Twitter

After all we've been through, I'm no more than "someone on Twitter" to you...?

[danyul]

LOL I didn't see that was you. Also, I think the last 2-3 posts I've made in this thread have been horribly misinformed or written without paying close enough attention to the preceding posts. I'm just gonna go back to lurking for awhile.

[thecrav]

Also, what do the table judges even do? Like I know they are "spotters" or whatever, but they are still judges after all. They seem to miss A LOT.

I believe the commentators have even mentioned this before. The judges do chime in when they notice something, but generally they're doing spotting type duties. Additionally, having a judge at the table reduces the delay to an already-delayed game if a judge is required.

[Michael Keller]

I just feel bad for people that get put on camera to play. It has to be so disconcerting to know thousands of people are watching you're every move, down to the very way you draw cards. Every mistake gets magnified, as well.

It just seems sad people look to dissect things like that because of past-precedent on-camera shenanigans. I mean how stupid do you really have to be to cheat with thousands of watchful eyes on you?

I miss simpler times.

[JDK]

I just feel bad for people that get put on camera to play. It has to be so disconcerting to know thousands of people are watching you're every move, down to the very way you draw cards. Every mistake gets magnified, as well.

It just seems sad people look to dissect things like that because of past-precedent on-camera shenanigans. I mean how stupid do you really have to be to cheat with thousands of watchful eyes on you?

I miss simpler times.

Bertoncini would like to have a word with you.

[goblinsplayer]

I just feel bad for people that get put on camera to play. It has to be so disconcerting to know thousands of people are watching you're every move, down to the very way you draw cards. Every mistake gets magnified, as well.

It just seems sad people look to dissect things like that because of past-precedent on-camera shenanigans. I mean how stupid do you really have to be to cheat with thousands of watchful eyes on you?

I miss simpler times.

I can agree here. I was put on camera for a brief time, and I was actually very nervous because I did not want to humiliate myself by making a mistake. I think I might actually have misplayed that game due to being on camera.

[Michael Keller]

Bertoncini would like to have a word with you.

I'm busy, it'll have to wait.

[Esper3k]

I just feel bad for people that get put on camera to play. It has to be so disconcerting to know thousands of people are watching you're every move, down to the very way you draw cards. Every mistake gets magnified, as well.

It just seems sad people look to dissect things like that because of past-precedent on-camera shenanigans. I mean how stupid do you really have to be to cheat with thousands of watchful eyes on you?

I miss simpler times.

Hah seriously. My local group even made a joke about starting to stream Legacy at the store to make me practice playing on camera since I play so poorly when I'm on...

[TheArchitect]

I just feel bad for people that get put on camera to play. It has to be so disconcerting to know thousands of people are watching you're every move, down to the very way you draw cards. Every mistake gets magnified, as well.

It just seems sad people look to dissect things like that because of past-precedent on-camera shenanigans. I mean how stupid do you really have to be to cheat with thousands of watchful eyes on you?

I miss simpler times.

I was actually thinking about it the other day in another context. Ok so, SCG is super bias when it comes to who they put on camera. We all know this. They put on their content writers and/or familiar names first whenever possible. Now they are sometimes matchups of familiar name vs familiar name. Those are fine. But most of the time it is an SCG favorite vs average Joe. The content writers better be used to the streams by now but the average Joe is likely to be nervous. He will probably play worse because hes on camera, giving an unfair advantage to the SCG favorite. Now if they just selected random matchups to feature this would be not be an issue, but they don't. There is an intentional selection bias.

TL;DR: Is it fair that SCG hand picks their favorites to feature against possibly nervous/intimidated "nobody" players?

[Bed Decks Palyer]

I can' imagine myself playing worse just because of some cameras. But that's maybe because I cannot play even worse than usual, and also becasue I'm used to the cameras and public performances.