|
DAD LOST MY IPOD posted:The problem is shuffling is a game action that you cannot take unless directed to by a card or game rule, and there is no game rule for this. Sometimes the judge just tells you to shuffle as part of fixing a mistake you made. This doesn't quite qualify as a mistake, but trying to break the game in a way that can be solved with a shuffle is something the judge will want to solve with a shuffle.
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 04:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 15:20 |
|
|
Prism posted:What's the actual answer? What happens? Matt Tabak punches you in the face.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 04:03
|
|
|
DAD LOST MY IPOD posted:The problem is shuffling is a game action that you cannot take unless directed to by a card or game rule, and there is no game rule for this. Actually, the Wurm would go back to the zone it was cast from, according to 717.1. Since it would be going to a part of your library that should be random, I would instruct you to shuffle it in.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 04:04
|
|
|
Brownhat posted:Actually, the Wurm would go back to the zone it was cast from, according to 717.1. Since it would be going to a part of your library that should be random, I would instruct you to shuffle it in. I was going to ask what happens if the opponent has a Psychogenic Probe in play, but then I noticed it's specifically worded to only trigger on spells or abilities. Is there even any reason for that clause to exist on that card besides judge instructions like that? I can't think of anything that makes you shuffle your library that's not a spell or ability. I suppose maybe your opponent taking mulligans when you started with it on the battlefield, but I can't think of any way for that to happen besides a card printed ten years later (Karn) and I'm not even sure if Karn would do it because I'm not sure at what relative point his "put dat poo poo onto the battlefield yo" clause happens. Magic wording is awesome. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 04:08
|
|
|
There was a guy who tried cheating in a tournament by shuffling his deck for no apparent reason, presenting it for his opponent to cut, and then call a judge on his opponent illegally cutting his deck. It didn't work.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 04:24
|
|
|
DAD LOST MY IPOD posted:The problem is shuffling is a game action that you cannot take unless directed to by a card or game rule, and there is no game rule for this. AATREK CURES KIDS posted:Sometimes the judge just tells you to shuffle as part of fixing a mistake you made. This doesn't quite qualify as a mistake, but trying to break the game in a way that can be solved with a shuffle is something the judge will want to solve with a shuffle. Brownhat posted:Actually, the Wurm would go back to the zone it was cast from, according to 717.1. Since it would be going to a part of your library that should be random, I would instruct you to shuffle it in. As these guys reinforced, a judge can instruct you to shuffle in order as part of a game-state resolution. The only reason I jumped immediately to that answer was because I brought up the case where you do something similar using Chromatic Sphere, and my suspicions about it were met with consensus. Especially since, once again, rewinding is never the go-to answer, and oftentimes (as I'm sure many competitive players have discovered) errors that seems like they'd be easy to back up will not be.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 04:27
|
|
|
AATREK CURES KIDS posted:There was a guy who tried cheating in a tournament by shuffling his deck for no apparent reason, presenting it for his opponent to cut, and then call a judge on his opponent illegally cutting his deck. This was, in fact, Tomoharu Saito. His second DQ in two months, leading to his first (of two, to date) eighteen-month suspension.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 04:35
|
|
|
Was it really intentional? I don't understand how he thought that would work at any point in the process.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 05:08
|
|
|
DAD LOST MY IPOD posted:The problem is shuffling is a game action that you cannot take unless directed to by a card or game rule, and there is no game rule for this. Well, it goes back in your deck in an indeterminate location, but that doesn't matter because it is immediately shuffled by whatever effect you were searching with.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 05:17
|
|
|
Kasonic posted:Was it really intentional? I don't understand how he thought that would work at any point in the process. DQ report posted:Saito had recently come off a DQ for bribery though that incident seemed to be the result of bad judgment over prize split rules and some poor translation more than anything overtly shady. In this second incident Saito was about to lose the game. Did he go into the tank to think? Did he calculate his outs by the percentages? No! Instead he picked up his own deck moved some cards around and then offered up his deck for his opponent to cut… for no reason!
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 05:20
|
|
|
Kasonic posted:Was it really intentional? I don't understand how he thought that would work at any point in the process. In the year 2014 there are still people who think you can request your opponent desleeve and then judge call for marked cards.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 06:17
|
|
|
Gynovore posted:Fun, but broken. A few days ago, Trick Jarrett wrote in his column about hypothetically using Conspiracies in Vintage/Legacy, and asked users to submit degenerate examples. I came up with a deck that, if it goes first, wins 99.9% of the time and uses only commons. What you really want is a deck that can win going second in this format. Like, if some other guy has a turn zero flash hulk style deck, you don't really have a way to deal with that. Something like a breakfast burrito shell, except with leyline of anticipation, archive trap, and no narcomoebas, since we have the free guys to start with. Or maybe some sort of myr retriever deck or something. Actually, Simian spirit guide + Shrapnel Blast is a good 2 card combo. That's probably a better place to start. E: yeah that seems like a good place to start. Tentative list: 4xShrapnel blast 4xSimian Spirit Guide 4xElvish spirit Guide 4xChancellor of the Tangle 4xGemstone Caverns 4xPact of Negation 4xDelay 4xMemory Lapse 4xForce of Will 4xTrickbind With all the conspiracies naming the appropriate stuff. Dr. Stab fucked around with this message at 06:42 on Jun 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 06:22
|
|
|
AATREK CURES KIDS posted:There was a guy who tried cheating in a tournament by shuffling his deck for no apparent reason, presenting it for his opponent to cut, and then call a judge on his opponent illegally cutting his deck. At what point is a cut ever illegal? Did they simply decide to randomly shuffle mid game? If that was so wouldn't the shuffle be considered the first illegal act and be dealt with or is that not how things are normally handled?
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 06:56
|
|
|
Deofuta posted:At what point is a cut ever illegal? Did they simply decide to randomly shuffle mid game? If that was so wouldn't the shuffle be considered the first illegal act and be dealt with or is that not how things are normally handled? That's right. No one is sure exactly what Saito was thinking, and it got him a long suspension from Magic.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 07:30
|
|
|
Hmm, In a format with Secrets of Paradise, Secret Summoning and Immediate Action, Village Bell-Ringer makes a lot of mana.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 07:45
|
|
|
It's a shame you can't name Construct with hidden conspiracies, because the ones you get from Sentinel Dispatch would love to have Secrets of Paradise and Immediate Action too. Also, I want to see the decks that choose not to run Power Play as a metagame choice.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 08:18
|
|
|
It turns on your Gemstone Caverns to not play it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 08:36
|
|
|
Ojetor posted:I dunno if there's an arcana, but off the top of my head: A bit late, but I never understood why Angel of Fury didn't have haste but Angel of Wrath did.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 10:45
|
|
|
Bread Set Jettison posted:A bit late, but I never understood why Angel of Fury didn't have haste but Angel of Wrath did. Presumably because you're paying the Morph cost and she doesn't have summoning sickness.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 12:55
|
|
|
a dozen swans posted:It's a shame you can't name Construct with hidden conspiracies, because the ones you get from Sentinel Dispatch would love to have Secrets of Paradise and Immediate Action too. I think it's a shame that they made them all Constructs... instead of Contraptions 
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 13:40
|
|
|
After the spoiler with the redacted looking "for the first time, XXXXX XXX XXXXX" I was hoping it was assemble your contraptions. It would have worked as a subtype for all the draft altering artifact creatures too.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 14:37
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 15:20
|
|
|
Cube's back baby
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 15:22
|
|
|
You're going to have to tell us if that Jace ever gets cast, and if it draws a ragequit. What are you doing here, Jace? 
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 15:26
|
|
|
not convinced by Jace when your only way of casting him is Cascade Bluffs
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 15:26
|
|
|
You splash Jace off a Cascade Bluffs? I give you an A for boldness and a D- for plausibility.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 15:26
|
|
|
LordSaturn posted:You're going to have to tell us if that Jace ever gets cast, and if it draws a ragequit. What are you doing here, Jace?
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 15:26
|
|
|
He's there to reveal to cursed scroll. Also, it is single elim.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 15:27
|
|
|
The March Hare posted:He's there to reveal to cursed scroll. But you could reveal cards you can actually cast to the cursed scroll? I would play mountain over Jace in that deck.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 15:29
|
|
|
I was too lazy to do the hypergeometric whatever, so I calculated roughly a 10% chance that you actually cast Jace in a six-turn game.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 15:31
|
|
|
Cube is about being super greedy so good work.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 15:37
|
|
|
 Round 1 down, game is easy. The March Hare fucked around with this message at 15:47 on Jun 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 15:45
|
|
|
Oh, for gently caress's sake.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 15:48
|
|
|
The March Hare posted:
Oh my.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 15:48
|
|
|
How does it feel to be the world's greatest hero
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 15:52
|
|
|
AATREK CURES KIDS posted:I was too lazy to do the hypergeometric whatever, so I calculated roughly a 10% chance that you actually cast Jace in a six-turn game. Is that the probability of drawing Jace + Bluffs in any given game? I'd also be interested in knowing how often you'll draw Jace but not the Bluffs. It doesn't matter if you don't have the mana to cast him if he's still sitting in your deck, the risk you're taking on is that you can draw a completely dead card sometimes. Then you can look at it as "well I'm probably going to win those 1 in 10 games where I cast Jace, but x in 10 games I'll be playing at -1 card if I draw Jace first".
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 15:54
|
|
|
Nibble posted:Is that the probability of drawing Jace + Bluffs in any given game? I'd also be interested in knowing how often you'll draw Jace but not the Bluffs. It doesn't matter if you don't have the mana to cast him if he's still sitting in your deck, the risk you're taking on is that you can draw a completely dead card sometimes. Then you can look at it as "well I'm probably going to win those 1 in 10 games where I cast Jace, but x in 10 games I'll be playing at -1 card if I draw Jace first". Also the stat isn't actually how often you draw Jace+Bluffs, but Jace+Bluffs+3 mountains
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 15:55
|
|
|
Elyv posted:But you could reveal cards you can actually cast to the cursed scroll? I would play mountain over Jace in that deck. The March Hare posted:
Now that's paper
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 16:00
|
|
|
Scrubbed in round 2 but it wasn't Jace's fault  Still felt so good.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 16:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 15:20 |
|
|
Nibble posted:Is that the probability of drawing Jace + Bluffs in any given game? I'd also be interested in knowing how often you'll draw Jace but not the Bluffs. It doesn't matter if you don't have the mana to cast him if he's still sitting in your deck, the risk you're taking on is that you can draw a completely dead card sometimes. Then you can look at it as "well I'm probably going to win those 1 in 10 games where I cast Jace, but x in 10 games I'll be playing at -1 card if I draw Jace first". Roughly 2 in 10 games. So if Jace 2.0 is worth playing even if dead in 2/3 games you draw him, it's actually a worthy gamble. He's good but I don't know if he's that good without any other shuffle effects.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 16:23
|
|