|
You can untap your lands. Despite what people think, the rules are not meant to punish to people, they are just meant to keep the game running smoothly. Punishing someone for an illegal action by forcing them to still keep their lands tapped is just stupid.
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2014 05:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 20:49 |
|
|
It's important to note that if a spell doesn't need a target when it's cast (eg: Suspension Field), then what we're talking about doesn't apply. I'm not going to let you take back Suspension Field when all I have out is a Sagu Mauler.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2014 06:02
|
|
|
Irony Be My Shield posted:Would you technically have to keep your lands tapped (since tapping lands and doing nothing with their mana is legal)? I always let my opponents take back stuff like that but I'm curious as to what the official rules say. No, you wouldn't. Magic doesn't have a touch rule. See the comprehensive rules: Magic Comprehensive Rules posted:717. Handling Illegal Actions
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2014 06:02
|
|
|
Also, if mtgo is any indication, lands are just untappable?
Death Bot fucked around with this message at 06:30 on Dec 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2014 06:25
|
|
|
Death Bot posted:Also, if mtgo is any indication, lands are just untappable? If MTGO is any indication the mechanics of the game are subject to the whims of a blind idiot god 
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2014 06:33
|
|
|
Effectively, yeah. Most cases where you untap your lands can be justified with a combination of the comp rules rewind and the MTR out-of-order sequencing rule. Even if you tapped your lands before showing your opponent the card, it's generally assumed that you did it as part of casting the spell. So, when you take the spell back, you rewind to before you tapped your lands.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2014 06:42
|
|
|
If you play by the letter of the rules, to my knowledge the only mana ability that isn't reversible provided you cast it during the activation of a spell is Selvala's. Ones like Chromatic Sphere aren't reversible if you activate them outside of casting a spell/activating an ability, though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2014 06:50
|
|
|
cheetah7071 posted:If you play by the letter of the rules, to my knowledge the only mana ability that isn't reversible provided you cast it during the activation of a spell is Selvala's. You can't actually reverse the Sphere ability - it moves cards from your library to a zone other than the stack, so it can't be reversed even as part of casting a spell. If you only figure out that it's an illegal action after you've activated it (and drawn your card face-down), you take back the spell (and turn the card face up in your hand), but the mana ability remains activated. This is one area where MTGO doesn't quite follow the letter of the rules, probably because it doesn't have any provision for reversing the casting of a spell without also reversing all mana abilities activated as part of that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2014 07:03
|
|
|
qbert posted:Just saw this tweet on my feed. That should be a DQ.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2014 07:10
|
|
|
Also before anyone freaks out and starts going "omg that means players can do taksies backsies and tap their plains instead of rishadan port after the fact" No it doesn't work like that. Once you actually make a commitment, like tapping some lands and showing the spell you intend to cast, you are committed to it. Being able to untap lands only factors in when you haven't committed to actually using the mana yet (or when you use for something thats not legal). Again, the rules are supposed to punish people, and it would be pretty lovely if we decided people couldn't untap lands they haven't even used the mana from yet.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2014 07:42
|
|
|
Lottery of Babylon posted:
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2014 09:53
|
|
|
SierraNovember posted:I do apologise for having been taught wrongly in my first 6-7 weeks by more knowledgeable players who clearly should know better! I mean if you're like gunning for competitive Magic it's cool to learn the rules and stick by them hard; there's nothing wrong with that at all imo. In this case, though, yeah, basically anything that does damage to a player can be freely redirected to any Planeswalker that player controls, and saying "I cast Shock targeting your planeswalker" is totally acceptable shorthand for "I cast shock targeting you, and redirect that damage to your planeswalker" (especially at FNM) and if you ARE intent on learning Magic totally by the book, it's important that you learn that
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2014 10:34
|
|
|
Also worth remembering that you don't have to choose to redirect until the spell is resolving, which is somewhat relevant if your opponent is playing with counters. Seems a lot of people don't actually know that, and think that targeting the walker is correct. Shorthand is just used a lot instead of jumping through hoops because it's easy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2014 10:45
|
|
|
I remember an interview between lsv and Riki Hayashi (a judge) -- it was ancient don't remember why I was watching it -- talking exactly about this issue. Some kid lost a game at a ptq because he didn't know how to a redirect a shock onto a planeswalker (his opponent said targeting it directly was illegal) and the judge wouldn't help.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2014 10:56
|
|
|
In addition, if you (the player) have Hexproof, then you cannot be targeted to redirect the damage to the planeswalker (unless the burn spell specifically says Planeswalker on it.)
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2014 11:14
|
|
|
goferchan posted:I mean if you're like gunning for competitive Magic it's cool to learn the rules and stick by them hard; there's nothing wrong with that at all imo. In this case, though, yeah, basically anything that does damage to a player can be freely redirected to any Planeswalker that player controls, and saying "I cast Shock targeting your planeswalker" is totally acceptable shorthand for "I cast shock targeting you, and redirect that damage to your planeswalker" (especially at FNM) and if you ARE intent on learning Magic totally by the book, it's important that you learn that Not so much by the book for serious play, but it is awkward for new players - how in any sense would you know you can do the whole redirect and planeswalker =\= player? Bit of a minefield but we learn in time I guess.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2014 11:39
|
|
|
SierraNovember posted:I do apologise for having been taught wrongly in my first 6-7 weeks by more knowledgeable players who clearly should know better! I think Lottery's comment was less because you got a rule wrong and more because you posted gloating about a guy ragequitting because you rules-lawyered him with a rule you got wrong, which you have to admit is not a great look
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2014 12:52
|
|
|
SierraNovember posted:I do apologise for having been taught wrongly in my first 6-7 weeks by more knowledgeable players who clearly should know better! We're just cutting you the same slack you gave your opponent
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2014 14:20
|
|
|
Amulet of Vigor going off in Milan... 
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2014 15:30
|
|
|
Also FNM isn't really the place to be a heavy rules lawyer anyway, it's supposed to be about expanding the playerbase rather than gutting it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2014 15:55
|
|
|
SierraNovember posted:Not so much by the book for serious play, but it is awkward for new players - how in any sense would you know you can do the whole redirect and planeswalker =\= player? Bit of a minefield but we learn in time I guess. I don't think it's more awkward than any of the other rules surrounding planeswalkers. There's really just a bunch of rules you need to know that aren't on the card. Most of the people I've taught to play have found nearly everything around them somewhat counterintuitive at first. Why can't you block with a planeswalker? Why can you only activate an ability once per turn? Oh I can block creatures attacking my planeswalker? Why would my Elspeth Sun's Champion kills my Elspeth Knight Errant when my Mikaeus the Lunarch wouldn't kill my Mikaeus, the Unhallowed? Anyway, keep in mind you're probably at a delicate stage of the game where you know enough to be dangerous. You think you know the rules well, but the comprehensive rules are something like 175 pages long. The edge cases you are going to start running into will likely be outside of your ability to reason through, because they'll involve things like "layers" or sub-sub-sections of the comprehensive rules that you just needed to have read already. Just chalk it up to a learning experience, and always call a Judge when you can.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2014 17:35
|
|
|
SierraNovember posted:Not so much by the book for serious play, but it is awkward for new players - how in any sense would you know you can do the whole redirect and planeswalker =\= player? Bit of a minefield but we learn in time I guess. If planeswalkers had been in the game from the beginning then burn spells would all say 'target player or planeswalker' and there would be no need for these damage-redirecting shenanigans. But they weren't, and rather than go back and errata decades' worth of cards they decided to use this kinda ugly hack.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2014 17:40
|
|
|
Layers system is a relic of old, bad game design and I'm glad when new systems don't have anything like it. It works well for what it does since this game is a working prototype but it really belongs in the forgotten grognards basement of clunky detailed rules design. Planes walker design fits in there too but unlike the wise decision of FFG to reboot the game with streamlined rules WOTC just keeps trudging on
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2014 17:42
|
|
|
SierraNovember posted:Not so much by the book for serious play, but it is awkward for new players - how in any sense would you know you can do the whole redirect and planeswalker =\= player? Bit of a minefield but we learn in time I guess. I'm not necessarily saying one should have to go to the Web to find the rules of the game, but this is clearly noted by Wizards on their page explaining planeswalkers, which is the very first Google result if one searches for "magic planeswalker rules." http://archive.wizards.com/Magic/tcg/article.aspx?x=magic/rules/planeswalkers
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2014 17:50
|
|
|
Chill la Chill posted:Layers system is a relic of old, bad game design and I'm glad when new systems don't have anything like it. It works well for what it does since this game is a working prototype but it really belongs in the forgotten grognards basement of clunky detailed rules design. Planes walker design fits in there too but unlike the wise decision of FFG to reboot the game with streamlined rules WOTC just keeps trudging on I can't really think of a better way to do layers. Layers are designed to make things seem intuitive. "Just do everything in timestamp order" is a much easier rule to remember, but it leads to strange things. Lots of games have something similar, but they aren't spelled out in the rules, and instead spread across disparate rulings for specific interactions. The other solution is to get rid of all of the continuous effects that can lead to confusing interaction, and just leave us with p/t modifiers and ability adding. But, that's getting rid of a large quantity of effects that exist in magic.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2014 18:00
|
|
|
Chill la Chill posted:Layers system is a relic of old, bad game design and I'm glad when new systems don't have anything like it. It works well for what it does since this game is a working prototype but it really belongs in the forgotten grognards basement of clunky detailed rules design. Planes walker design fits in there too but unlike the wise decision of FFG to reboot the game with streamlined rules WOTC just keeps trudging on Layers aren't a part of design, they are a necessity for the rules to be 100% clear. They don't do the kind of stuff that requires layers much any more, but Magic is a 20-year-old game. It's easy to grok power-toughness swapping effects, and P/T-setting effects and whatnot, but how do they interact? If my opponent casts Polymorphist's Jest, how does that interact with the Hatred I planned on casting? Hell look at Humility and Opalescence. It's a bullshit super-niche interaction, but it's in the rules, and it works. You as a player don't need to know it, and even Judges don't care too much about it, just look it up if needed. Also, what FFG game are you referring to, with the reboot?
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2014 18:04
|
|
|
Chill la Chill posted:Layers system is a relic of old, bad game design and I'm glad when new systems don't have anything like it. It works well for what it does since this game is a working prototype but it really belongs in the forgotten grognards basement of clunky detailed rules design. Planes walker design fits in there too but unlike the wise decision of FFG to reboot the game with streamlined rules WOTC just keeps trudging on Android Netrunner rulings are a complete trainwreck because there are no underlying principles like layers so whenever you want to know how an unclear interaction works you need to email the lead designer and hope you get an answer, and since the lead designer isn't working off of any big underlying principles either the same question can and has had different answers depending on when you ask him since he doesn't remember what answer he gave last time. And the rulings he does give often don't make a lick of sense even after being explained. A complex rules system isn't desirable, but replacing it with no rules system at all, in a game ostensibly to be played in tournaments, is not a step forward. FFG was also rebooting another company's game that only ran for like one and a half sets in the nineties anyhow, not terminating their own ongoing game with hundreds of expansions.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2014 18:15
|
|
|
The biggest problem with Jeskai Ascendancy isn't anything the card does, its the fact that it attracts very slow players.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2014 18:34
|
|
|
Lottery of Babylon posted:Android Netrunner rulings are a complete trainwreck because there are no underlying principles like layers I love A:NR, but it was pretty weird when Lukas's rulings started to violate the normal canons of formal logic and mathematics. I'm a bit worried how arbitrary some of the central principles of the rule system are, such as the lack of a stack but the ability to interrupt an effect in the middle of its resolution with a prevention effect. It makes cards like Steelskin very difficult to grok. Lottery of Babylon posted:FFG was also rebooting another company's game that only ran for like one and a half sets in the nineties anyhow, not terminating their own ongoing game with hundreds of expansions. I think Chill la Chill was referring to intended reboot of Game of Thrones, which has been justified as a chance to get rid of clunky rules and timing issues.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2014 18:40
|
|
|
jassi007 posted:We're just cutting you the same slack you gave your opponent Oh I completely agree, it was incredibly harsh but as far as I was aware, that's how the rules worked. I wouldn't have thought people would rage quit over it though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2014 18:48
|
|
|
Ebethron posted:I think Chill la Chill was referring to intended reboot of Game of Thrones, which has been justified as a chance to get rid of clunky rules and timing issues. Oops, I hadn't heard about this and assumed it was about A:NR rebooting original Netrunner. Nevermind! Of course, rebooting an LCG is still pretty different from rebooting a very long-running CCG. As I understand it, the only format Game of Thrones and the other LCGs support is the equivalent of Legacy, resulting an extremely static metagame. That's barely sustainable for an LCG that releases only 120ish cards per year. For a game like Magic, in order to sell packs and keep the game changing they'd need to combine an aggressively rotating banlist with regular power creep (also known as the Yugioh method). I don't think FFG is rebooting Game of Thrones because they're keen on cleaning up the base rules, I suspect they're rebooting it because it became unsustainable.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2014 18:51
|
|
|
SierraNovember posted:Oh I completely agree, it was incredibly harsh but as far as I was aware, that's how the rules worked. I wouldn't have thought people would rage quit over it though. If you read magic threads enough you'll find that people will ragequit over just about anything. You'll also learn that Wizards is totally killing Magic this week for a completely different reason than whatever they were doing last week. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2014 18:54
|
|
|
Concerning rebooting magic: The rules have changed dramatically a couple times. Old cards, and the interactions that go along with them are continuously rotating away. Magic is being constantly reinvented. It doesn't really need a messy hard reboot.Cernunnos posted:If you read magic threads enough you'll find that people will ragequit over just about anything. Magic was a great game before Mark Rosewater came along and killed it 18 years ago.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2014 19:05
|
|
|
Dr. Stab posted:Concerning rebooting magic: The rules have changed dramatically a couple times. Old cards, and the interactions that go along with them are continuously rotating away. Magic is being constantly reinvented. It doesn't really need a messy hard reboot. This is very true, a player a few years younger than me was going through my trade binder, looked at an Ice Age card and asked "what's banding"? I told her "nothing you'll ever have to worry about".
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2014 19:10
|
|
|
Lottery of Babylon posted:Oops, I hadn't heard about this and assumed it was about A:NR rebooting original Netrunner. Nevermind! This is news to me, and cool, because the GoT LCG has seemed interesting to me but I looked at the card pool and kind of said gently caress it; way too overwhelming
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2014 19:58
|
|
|
Dr. Stab posted:Concerning rebooting magic: The rules have changed dramatically a couple times. Old cards, and the interactions that go along with them are continuously rotating away. Magic is being constantly reinvented. It doesn't really need a messy hard reboot. Rebooting Magic is just a bad idea because of the fact that ancient poo poo is actively played. I think we're currently in a nice place where being able to play Mirror Universe next to Jeskai Ascendancy or whatever is concerned. I just wish they'd be more up front about how Planeswalker cards worked, I think that really is the element most confusing to newbies. SierraNovember posted:Oh I completely agree, it was incredibly harsh but as far as I was aware, that's how the rules worked. I wouldn't have thought people would rage quit over it though. FNM is marketed as a chill time, but since most people play it as Competitive Tournament Jr. I'd say even if you weren't correct, the spirit of what you did fits right in 
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2014 20:11
|
|
|
Oh, U/W Control. How I've missed you. 70 minutes so far for Game 2 of this match on stream.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2014 22:08
|
|
|
To everyone complaining about layers, the way layers work is that 99% of the time everything does exactly what you expect. The remaining 1% of the time, it's impossible to deviate from expectations because the complications are so complex you don't know what to expect.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2014 22:20
|
|
|
qbert posted:Oh, U/W Control. How I've missed you. 70 minutes so far for Game 2 of this match on stream. I feel bad for Cedric and Patrick Chapin. This is painful.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2014 22:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 20:49 |
|
|
qbert posted:Oh, U/W Control. How I've missed you. 70 minutes so far for Game 2 of this match on stream. Somehow it manages to be worse than Revelation mirrors. This is the worst standard I've ever seen.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2014 22:29
|
|
