SLOW PLAY - Why I stood up & left the table

[thefringthing]

The reactions to the chalice question confirm my belief that only about 10% of the people here play paper magic at CREL.

It doesn't hurt that they changed the missed trigger rules so many times that you have to be a Level 17 Elder of the DCI Shadow Council to explain the current rules fully.

[KevinTrudeau]

Reminds me of the time Tomoharu Saito stalled to draw round 10 of GP Columbus 2010 when he was clearly about to lose game three, a GP he would go on to win (and get the $3500 grand prize). Same type of situation with a judge present and simply not doing anything, although Saito had literally just been Tsabo's Decreed of Merfolk and did not have a complex board state to look at. The opponent would later top eight said GP as well, but was really shook up over it and legitimately cried after the round because of it (this is not a joke, and I do not want to reveal who it is as he is a really cool guy). I do not blame, as it probably felt like getting mugged in front of a police station with no one doing anything to help you. There is nothing wrong with crying.

Comes down to M:tG judges not treating judging as work but rather some sort of fantasy cosplay.

[CutthroatCasual]

The reactions to the chalice question confirm my belief that only about 10% of the people here play paper magic at CREL.

I love cheesing spells into an opposing Chalice. If the controller remembers the trigger then I just scoop because at that point I'm in desperation mode.

[Fjaulnir]

Reminds me of the time Tomoharu Saito stalled to draw round 10 of GP Columbus 2010 when he was clearly about to lose game three, a GP he would go on to win (and get the $3500 grand prize). Same type of situation with a judge present and simply not doing anything, although Saito had literally just been Tsabo's Decreed of Merfolk and did not have a complex board state to look at. The opponent would later top eight said GP as well, but was really shook up over it and legitimately cried after the round because of it (this is not a joke, and I do not want to reveal who it is as he is a really cool guy). I do not blame, as it probably felt like getting mugged in front of a police station with no one doing anything to help you. There is nothing wrong with crying.

Comes down to M:tG judges not treating judging as work but rather some sort of fantasy cosplay.

The worst case of Slow Play I had ever done upon me, was while 2 judges were watching for at least 5 minutes (just as spectators, it felt like) while he literally slowplayed for the whole 50 minutes. Missed T8 of that event due to drawing 1 turn before being able to kill him. 1 round later I saw his next opponent nearly commit suicide over frustration about that guy's playstyle. I'm really glad he went from playing Legacy to Modern mostly as it's a known slowplayer in the community.

[Richard Cheese]

The worst case of Slow Play I had ever done upon me, was while 2 judges were watching for at least 5 minutes (just as spectators, it felt like) while he literally slowplayed for the whole 50 minutes. Missed T8 of that event due to drawing 1 turn before being able to kill him. 1 round later I saw his next opponent nearly commit suicide over frustration about that guy's playstyle. I'm really glad he went from playing Legacy to Modern mostly as it's a known slowplayer in the community.

At least that shit finally caught up with him. Anyone know if he's changed at all since the suspension?

[nedleeds]

It doesn't hurt that they changed the missed trigger rules so many times that you have to be a Level 17 Elder of the DCI Shadow Council to explain the current rules fully.

Not really. You are responsible for triggers on things you control. If your opponent misses a trigger on something they control you may at your discretion call a judge and have it resolved to your benefit, that opponent should catch a GRV. Besides some minutia around the specific card that's basically it.

What don't you understand?

[thefringthing]

Not really. You are responsible for triggers on things you control. If your opponent misses a trigger on something they control you may at your discretion call a judge and have it resolved to your benefit, that opponent should catch a GRV. Besides some minutia around the specific card that's basically it.

What don't you understand?

I understand the missed trigger rules, but at this point I can't fault anyone who doesn't. The point at which an effect visibly changes the game state is different for different kinds of effects. (Some effects, like triggers that create a delayed trigger, never do this, and are just assumed to have resolved even if their controller actually missed them.) Genuinely missing a trigger and cheating by intentionally missing a trigger are indistinguishable in general. In many cases "do X" and "you may do X" mean the same thing. Whether someone should receive a warning related to missing triggers depends on whether the trigger is considered detrimental (in general), which is determined by looking up the triggered ability in a big fucking list of all the triggered abilities in the game. This is a fucking mess. Add to it the fact that before these rules were arrived at, the missed trigger rules were in rapid flux for quite a while, and you get a scenario in which I don't think anyone can reasonably be expected to know how to handle any given missed trigger situation.

[Plague Sliver]

I understand the missed trigger rules, but at this point I can't fault anyone who doesn't. The point at which an effect visibly changes the game state is different for different kinds of effects. (Some effects, like triggers that create a delayed trigger, never do this, and are just assumed to have resolved even if their controller actually missed them.) Genuinely missing a trigger and cheating by intentionally missing a trigger are indistinguishable in general. In many cases "do X" and "you may do X" mean the same thing. Whether someone should receive a warning related to missing triggers depends on whether the trigger is considered detrimental (in general), which is determined by looking up the triggered ability in a big fucking list of all the triggered abilities in the game. This is a fucking mess. Add to it the fact that before these rules were arrived at, the missed trigger rules were in rapid flux for quite a while, and you get a scenario in which I don't think anyone can reasonably be expected to know how to handle any given missed trigger situation.

So what would you suggest as a solution?

[Julian23]

Honestly, the current triggers policy isn't very hard to understand at all. And a really good upgrade from the previous one where you had to help your opponent. Also, the Kibler situation made it really quite clear that the previous one could no longer stand since it leads to those exact fucked up situations.


If your opponent misses a trigger, no matter whether any mysterious list you try to invoke considers it "beneficial" or not, if you want that trigger to resolve at any point during the turn cycle, you can call a judge and ask for it.

Whether he missed it on purpose or not is a completly different issue that is unrelated to the trigger policy. The question whether someone broke the rules in any way on purpose or not is a general issue inherent to judging. But it's not like the previous trigger policy provided any advantages here. In fact, it was even worse. Nobody knows whether Kibler knew his opponent had missed a "must trigger" or not.

[dte]

Honestly, the current triggers policy isn't very hard to understand at all. And a really good upgrade from the previous one where you had to help your opponent. Also, the Kibler situation made it really quite clear that the previous one could no longer stand since it leads to those exact fucked up situations.

hello,

That's the third reference to the "Kibler situation", but I am sure I am not alone not knowing what it refers to?

Otherwise I understand the frustration, and may add that playing against a slow player is also boring, which I find even worse as I come with the firm intent to have fun playing. Funnily enough playing against a slowplayer happened quite recently to me with elves and playing against Eldrazi :)

But I never could bring myself to call a judge for that, and wouldn't in the future, as to my eyes it would be a bad experience for both players (for slow play, I think I would call for stalling - I feel it important to distinguish these).
That being said I understand and find perfectly legitimate that more competitive player call judges for that.

[CptHaddock]

hello,

That's the third reference to the "Kibler situation", but I am sure I am not alone not knowing what it refers to?

Unless they're alluding to a situation that I don't know about. It was having to do with a mandatory angel of despair trigger in a quarterfinals match of the pro tour.

You can read about the situation here.

[Julian23]

In the quarter finals of PT Austin (2009), Kibler played against Evangelos Papatsarouchas on Hypergenesis. In the final game of their series Papatsarouchas resolved a Hypergenesis and both players put in a bunch of stuff. Among the cards Papatsarouchas put in was a Angel of Despair, which has a mandatory trigger that destroys any permanent. Papatsarouchas missed that trigger, which was the deciding factor. Had he remember it, he would have advanced over Kibler (and judging by the Semis and Finals matchup, been a huge favorite to win the PT).

The only person in the room who was aware of the missed trigger was Kibler. Neither the judges nor the spotters on the floor caught it. Under the old trigger policy it would have been Kibler's duty to point out to his opponent that he had just missed a trigger. Kibler didn't. Instead the trigger went unnoticed and he won the match.

Technically this would have meant that Kibler was in for a DQ without prize. Here's the catch: Kibler successfully argued that while he was aware of the trigger, he wasn't sure whether it was mandatory ("destroy") or not ("may destroy"). He also didn't want to pick up the Angel and read it because that would be a losing moving if it in fact was non-mandatory, as it would tip off his opponent. So he said nothing and went on to win the PT.

It was a pretty fucked up situation. My point is not whether Kibler was to blame or not. Because in the end it's WotC who created the old trigger policy which made us have these situations in the first place. That's why even though the current trigger policy still is quite flawed in some ways, it's still the best we've had thus far.

The easiest solution to do away with all of this would be if WotC only slapped mandatory triggers on cards that *really* need them (like e.g. Leveler) but that ship has sailed many decades ago.

[dte]

Thank you both for the detailed story, it indeed shows nicely an important issue with the previous trigger policy.

[Fox]

The missed trigger policy is more or less fine when paired with rewinding of game states. With a Leveler trigger, you would go back put trigger on stack and hit the library. That said, if that player drew a card that shouldn't have existed, they will neither lose the card nor get a retrospective game loss due to what should have been decking - this is how I understand it anyways. The one that is worrisome is the missing self-Chalice triggers; the explanation at EW was rewind, put trigger on stack, does nothing b/c that spell is either now a permanent on the battlefield or resolved and in a graveyard...this is problematic...you're effectively allowed to mess up self-Chalice triggers twice in a tournament before getting a game loss while maintaining gamestate/battlefield advantages you shouldn't have.

[Meekrab]

I half agree. I *really* despised that rules change because I'm sportsmanlike I guess. It bugs me that a non-choice effect that *has* to happen can be missed in paper magic.

I guess it bugs me as a CS/Math nerd, since it is a contradiction. [It says you can't do a thing, but you can actually do a thing if you're opp is bad.]

Chalice doesn't have the word "can't" printed on it. I agree it's templated poorly and if it was designed today it would probably say "Players can't cast spells with converted mana cost X," but it plainly doesn't say you can't 'do a thing' and we are where we are.

[Varal]

Not really. You are responsible for triggers on things you control. If your opponent misses a trigger on something they control you may at your discretion call a judge and have it resolved to your benefit, that opponent should catch a GRV. Besides some minutia around the specific card that's basically it.

What don't you understand?

This is only half of it. The policy changes a lot depending on the REL of tournaments. Since most games are played at Regular, it is no wonder that many people are confused in higher REL events.

[Julian23]

This is only half of it. The policy changes a lot depending on the REL of tournaments. Since most games are played at Regular, it is no wonder that many people are confused in higher REL events.

That's a very good point that I hadn't even thought about. 95% of matches I play are on REL Competitive+, which I think should be the standard when discussing anything rules-related in (well..) a competitive context.
Like we do in this forum.

The consequences of certain rules policy alienating more casual-minded players is something that's actually not an issue of competitive play but belongs into a general community discussion.

[rlesko]

Honestly, the current triggers policy isn't very hard to understand at all. And a really good upgrade from the previous one where you had to help your opponent. Also, the Kibler situation made it really quite clear that the previous one could no longer stand since it leads to those exact fucked up situations.

If your opponent misses a trigger, no matter whether any mysterious list you try to invoke considers it "beneficial" or not, if you want that trigger to resolve at any point during the turn cycle, you can call a judge and ask for it.

Whether he missed it on purpose or not is a completly different issue that is unrelated to the trigger policy. The question whether someone broke the rules in any way on purpose or not is a general issue inherent to judging. But it's not like the previous trigger policy provided any advantages here. In fact, it was even worse. Nobody knows whether Kibler knew his opponent had missed a "must trigger" or not.

I agree 100%, and this is pretty much what I was trying to say in my earlier post.

[thefringthing]

So what would you suggest as a solution?

The original trigger rules. If the effect says "may do X", you may do X but don't have to. If the effect says "do X" and you don't, you get a warning for missing a trigger. If your opponent misses a trigger you have to point it out so they can get a warning, or else you get failure to maintain. Accrue enough missed trigger warnings and you start getting game losses, match losses, DQs, whatever. Apparently this was too much work for judges (too bad), people don't like having to point out opponent's missed triggers when it's in their favour (too bad), and WotC thinks new players don't know what the word "may" means (what?).

[dte]

The original trigger rules. If the effect says "may do X", you may do X but don't have to. If the effect says "do X" and you don't, you get a warning for missing a trigger. If your opponent misses a trigger you have to point it out so they can get a warning, or else you get failure to maintain. Accrue enough missed trigger warnings and you start getting game losses, match losses, DQs, whatever. Apparently this was too much work for judges (too bad), people don't like having to point out opponent's missed triggers when it's in their favour (too bad), and WotC thinks new players don't know what the word "may" means (what?).

That does not solve the problem Julian pointed out with the Kibler situation: if you know that our opponent trigger is detrimental to you, but do not remember if it is worded "may" or "do", what do you do?

I would add that it would clearly increase the gap between regular and competitive REL, and to my opinion would be detrimental to the game experience (receiving or having my opponent receive a warning is never what we are here for).