|
whydirt posted:Exploit should have been a white mechanic. 
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 02:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 17:34 |
|
|
i run a singleton simian spirit guide in my living end board for t2 violent outburst to stop delver/bogles/etc. got someone who went t1 bogle/t2 ethereal armor+/t3 rancor+daybreak and blew him out with it. ideal scenarios happen every once in a while and good lord they feel good when they do. edit: meaning i have the mana ready on t2 and pop it on their eot (or earlier if needed). even if i don't have more than a carabid/deadshot/wraiths in the bin when i resolve living end, popping a delver is worth it. also i run 4 living end main because if all of my silver bullets are equal then quantity>quality. Office Commando fucked around with this message at 02:26 on Apr 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 02:23
|
|
|
Poor Aaron Forsythe is an inexperienced/boring streamer. This modern draft has all of 500 people watching it  edit: and I'm one of them edit edit: oh poo poo everyone is streaming at once. I can move off the main stream, whoo hmm yes fucked around with this message at 02:31 on Apr 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 02:26
|
|
|
Kasonic posted:Replying from four pages ago, this thread moves too fast. The original text of Acidic Soil used an old template that they don't use anymore: "1 damage . . . for each . . . ." That's why they updated Acidic Soil. They could have used a new wording like the one Citadel of Pain uses, but I like the one that they picked; it's shorter for one thing. Citadel of Pain's wording still makes sense and fits modern guidelines, so they never saw a need to change it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 02:31
|
|
|
My living End runs quad Simians and 17 land now and I'm completely happy with it. Running out T2 Fulminator Mages all day is great, and with the amount of cycling you see so many cards that I don't really have mana issues. The deck doesn't need more than 3 lands on the table and doesn't really gain any advantage to hitting any more so being able to gas up for quicker turns or late game drop a 2/2 durdle instead of land 6 is more exciting to me. I run 5 landcyclers though along with the full 12 1-mana cyclers in Jund and street wraiths so I draw a poo poo ton of cards. If I had fewer land cycles I'd probably have more issues.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 02:32
|
|
|
For people who are against video replay, what is your opinion on people getting caught cheating on camera? Should the coverage team say something if both players and the table judge miss it? Or is it fair game because on a regular table play would just continue and maybe they get punished by WOTC after the tournament? After the round? I'm legitimately not trying to troll here I'm just curious Furthermore should there even be table judges in the feature area or should their matches be unsupervised just like the majority of matches? Wezlar fucked around with this message at 04:05 on Apr 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 04:02
|
|
|
Haha, my friend who is enamored with Bloom Titan scrubbed out in the final round of a tournament last night the turn he had the game 3 win because he was so excited to combo out, he forgot to pay a Summoner's Pact delayed trigger. 
Four Score fucked around with this message at 11:05 on Apr 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 04:14
|
|
|
Wezlar posted:For people who are against video replay, what is your opinion on people getting caught cheating on camera? I think nailing people to the wall for blatant cheating if caught on camera is fine. Doing this does not put any players into a disadvantaged group. If cheating is suspect but an investigation is required I think that is fine too. This does not put honest players outside of a feature match at a disadvantage. Play does not continue in a non-feature match if the game is found. Table Judges for the feature area are fine, because having a judge watch your match does not give feature match players an advantage. Stricter rules enforcement does not provide an advantage, and it improves the quality of the feature match play. At low level tournaments the top tables always have a defacto table judge anyways, because the judges watch the interesting matches between judge calls. Elevating the amount of judging for a group does not disadvantage others. Relaxing the floor rules for a feature match because the cameras make it easier to judge authoritatively after the fact does disadvantage others. Do you get the difference I'm trying to point out?
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 04:27
|
|
|
Yeah I see where you're coming from and I think that's a fair point! I do think that given you are playing fairly and mechanically you arent making mistakes you are legitmately at a disadvantage by not playing at the feature tables (less eyes watching your opponent) but there is unfortunately very little we can do about that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 04:35
|
|
|
Wezlar posted:For people who are against video replay, what is your opinion on people getting caught cheating on camera? Spectators, Judges walking by, the players at the next table, and many other people outside of the two players participating the match can and do routinely catch errors, misplays, and other problems and inform Judges. A lot more matches than just the ones played on camera benefit from the watchful eye of outside observers. The only realistic and enforceable way to deal with the inherent unfairness that some games benefit from outside observers reporting on infractions and others do not, would be to ban outside observers from reporting infractions. That is way way worse than just being willing to accept a world where some infractions are caught and others are not due to outside observers. Think of it this way. Video replays introduce a level of "unfairness" with the potential benefit a tiny number of games at the cost a massive number of games played off camera. Banning the use of video replays for certain Judging decisions on the other hand, has a downside applicable to a tiny number of games, and an upside (consistency and fairness) that applies to a ton more matches. It's a very different situation. Using technology, or other observers to help catch rules violations is good, because our goal regarding rules violations is to catch all of them, that's not possible though so we accept that and settle for catching all the infractions we can. Once we've discover a rules violation though our focus changes to making sure the infractions handed out are as uniform across matches as possible in the interest of treating all players equally, so in this situation with a different focus, we forego the technology so as not to adjudicate feature matches differently than others. Ciprian Maricon fucked around with this message at 05:00 on Apr 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 04:43
|
|
|
If you're actually cheating then you don't get to complain if you're caught
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 04:57
|
|
|
Ciprian Maricon posted:Spectators, Judges walking by, the players at the next table, and many other people outside of the two players participating the match can and do routinely catch errors, misplays, and other problems and inform Judges. A lot more matches than just the ones played on camera benefit from the watchful eye of outside observers. I agree with you for the most part I also want to say that for the Chapin case I do think that regardless of whether or not replay was used the correct penalty was given. I personally disagree with how strong the penalty for the infraction is in that given situation but the fair ruling is that the card touched his hand and therefore it was considered drawn and he gets a game loss. The replay would have shown the exact same thing. My main problem is that I personally think it is inconsistent to let the coverage team report issues of cheating but not weigh in on judge calls. If a person can report an infraction they watched through the video screen and back it up with their words surely it makes sense to also be able to look at a video of the infraction if one exists. edit: I just want to make it clear that I am not talking about cutting players slack due to video evidence pointing to intent. I don't think we should be able to do that. All players should be held to the same standard of mechanical play and should all have to follow the rules the same. I am simply talking about using all of the available evidence to make the correct consistent judge call. Wezlar fucked around with this message at 05:03 on Apr 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 04:59
|
|
|
Its a matter of our goals. Detecting Violations: We want to catch all of the rules violations, so we use every tool to detect them (like the camera) Adjudicating Infractions: We want consistency in our application of the rules, so we ignore the camera. Wezlar posted:I am simply talking about using all of the available evidence to make the correct consistent judge call. Using all the tools available to make the correct decision is only going to be consistent when all the same tools are available for every decision. We don't have the same tools at every table, so we can never be consistent if we use the camera when available. Ciprian Maricon fucked around with this message at 05:08 on Apr 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 05:02
|
|
|
Wezlar posted:Yeah I see where you're coming from and I think that's a fair point! You are technically at a disadvantage only if they're cheating intentionally, and there's no practical way to watch for all cheaters. However, by having the top tables in feature matches (top tables being where most / the most relevant cheating happens) it seems like a reasonable excursion of resources compared to random spotting.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 05:11
|
|
|
Four Score posted:Haha, my friend who is enamored with Bloom Titan scrubbed out in the final round of a tournament last night the turn he had the game 3 win because he was so excited to combo out, he forgot to pay a Savage Summoning delayed trigger. Savage summoning doesn't have a delayed trigger.  Summoner's pact does, though. Also, if your friend isn't putting a die or something on top of his deck to remind himself to pay for pacts, he shouldn't be running amulet combo. This post is brought to you by a dude who loves his amulet combo decks.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 05:14
|
|
|
Marshall wins 
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 05:14
|
|
|
Irony Be My Shield posted:If you're actually cheating then you don't get to complain if you're caught If you don't, you aren't a very good cheater.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 05:16
|
|
|
If a coverage team were to make a judge call (in a universe of good coverage teams. So just SCG really) for cheating presumably they'd mute themselves on coverage and contact the table judge to pause the game and call out the cheat while cutting away to the booth if/when things get hairy.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 05:35
|
|
|
Ciprian Maricon posted:Using all the tools available to make the correct decision is only going to be consistent when all the same tools are available for every decision. We don't have the same tools at every table, so we can never be consistent if we use the camera when available. Sorry I wasn't very clear there, when I said consistent what I meant was that the punishment is always consistent with the infraction. So in the Chapin example because the card did in fact touch his other cards the consistent ruling would be that he gets a game loss despite he evidence showing that he probably wasn't intentionally cheating. I agree that it's definitely about what our priorities in the situation are. I think in the case of instant replay the goals are a) prevent cheating and b) always make the best ruling possible. You do further sacrifice consistency of tournament experience for the players. I don't think either side is wrong but it's an issue I do think its an interesting discussion.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 05:38
|
|
|
There was something we used to talk about in this thread.... I can't remember for the life of me...
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 05:41
|
|
|
Dungeon Ecology posted:There was something we used to talk about in this thread.... Sorry dude I haven't played Yugioh in years.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 06:01
|
|
|
How many time walks did Chapin's opponent get with that ruling?
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 06:14
|
|
|
cheetah7071 posted:How many time walks did Chapin's opponent get with that ruling? pretty sure a win = infinite time walks E: http://mtgtop8.com/event?e=9517&d=254649&f=MO  I think someone took their pauper deck into a modern eventAnd went 4-0, no less TheKingofSprings fucked around with this message at 07:06 on Apr 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 06:16
|
|
|
TheKingofSprings posted:pretty sure a win = infinite time walks Nope, that's a super budget modern list that's been around quite some time in one incarnation or another. A buddy of mine used to play it before getting distracted by the super awkward Blistercoil Weird deck, and now he's playing Tron or some such. It's a solid T2 deck that can sometimes just blow people straight up.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 07:25
|
|
|
Wezlar posted:Sorry I wasn't very clear there, when I said consistent what I meant was that the punishment is always consistent with the infraction. So in the Chapin example because the card did in fact touch his other cards the consistent ruling would be that he gets a game loss despite he evidence showing that he probably wasn't intentionally cheating. Just for your clarification in the article Chapin wrote, he seems to imply that the reason he actually got the game loss was because he revealed the rest of his hand in an attempt to prove Tasigur was the card he took off Ajani. quote:After lifting up my four cards and finding only Tasigur, I selected him and set him down on the table, touching my hand, while I resolved the rest of the Ajani ability, putting the other three cards on the bottom of my deck. When I went back to pick up my hand, the failure to reveal was raised. I immediately did, as it was still the top card. The judge said it was too late, it had merged with my hand.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 07:45
|
|
|
qbert posted:Just for your clarification in the article Chapin wrote, he seems to imply that the reason he actually got the game loss was because he revealed the rest of his hand in an attempt to prove Tasigur was the card he took off Ajani. Yeah he has that all kinds of wrong. The penalty is a Game Loss (not upgraded), because the card merged with his hand, it wasn't an upgraded Warning, and you're always free to reveal information you have access to (so you can play with your hand open, for example)
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 07:52
|
|
|
qbert posted:Just for your clarification in the article Chapin wrote, he seems to imply that the reason he actually got the game loss was because he revealed the rest of his hand in an attempt to prove Tasigur was the card he took off Ajani.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 07:53
|
|
|
qbert posted:Just for your clarification in the article Chapin wrote, he seems to imply that the reason he actually got the game loss was because he revealed the rest of his hand in an attempt to prove Tasigur was the card he took off Ajani. I think that what he's saying is that because the Tasigur is now a part of his hand it is private information and because he had to reveal it to prove it was what he had drawn it is revealing private infomation, regardless of whether or not he reveals the rest of the cards in his hand?
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 07:53
|
|
|
Lancelot posted:No, that's not what he's saying. He's saying that the exception to upgrading to a game loss (the Courser of Kruphix one he mentioned earlier) was held not to apply because not all his hand was public info. Okay that makes a lot more sense. Edit: That brings up another question I have. So if my opponent had a Courser of Kruphix out, is every card he draws with it considered public information? So if say 3 turns later I ask him which cards in his hand should I know about, does he have to tell me? qbert fucked around with this message at 07:58 on Apr 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 07:55
|
|
|
qbert posted:Okay that makes a lot more sense. Your opponent is under no obligation to tell you what's in his hand even if you saw every card in it. It's up to you to keep track of it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 08:13
|
|
|
No. Remembering what cards your opponent has drawn with Courser is derived information. Like, how big a Goblin Piledriver could be on attacks, that's technically public information right there on the board but your opponent has no obligation to tell you, so it takes some thinking or skill to determine.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 08:16
|
|
|
Ciprian Maricon posted:No. Remembering what cards your opponent has drawn with Courser is derived information. Like, how big a Goblin Piledriver could be on attacks, its technically public, but takes some thinking or skill to determine. Okay, so just to be clear, a Courser of Kruphix being in play is totally irrelevant when it comes to resolving issues like failure to reveal or accidentally drawing an extra card?
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 08:18
|
|
|
Mikujin posted:Nope, that's a super budget modern list that's been around quite some time in one incarnation or another. A buddy of mine used to play it before getting distracted by the super awkward Blistercoil Weird deck, and now he's playing Tron or some such. It's a solid T2 deck that can sometimes just blow people straight up. That d cake looks like a fun $20 deck to bring out every once in a while. Just add some shocks. Edit: would pump annul to 4 to respect twin though
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 08:19
|
|
|
qbert posted:Okay, so just to be clear, a Courser of Kruphix being in play is totally irrelevant when it comes to resolving issues like failure to reveal or accidentally drawing an extra card? It depends. For example when you know the identity of an extra card drawn due to an effect like Courser you can put it back and downgrade to a warning. That's not always the case though an opponent can for example not remember what the extra card drawn was, without a consensus on what the card is, we stick with a game loss.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 08:26
|
|
|
Mezzanon posted:Edit: would pump annul to 4 to respect twin though
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 08:34
|
|
|
Irony Be My Shield posted:How about Rending Volley? Also good.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 08:40
|
|
|
qbert posted:Actually, I will copy/paste the relevant portion of his argument, because it's kind of funny that he's basically continuing right where he left off from the judge appeal on camera onto the internet, and also maybe the judges in this thread can comment on the validity of his arguments. If Wizards should have cut away the coverage when Chapin was talking to the head judge then SCG shouldn't have published this
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 10:41
|
|
|
Barry Shitpeas posted:If Wizards should have cut away the coverage when Chapin was talking to the head judge then SCG shouldn't have published this It is a premium article on a website largely for hardcore magic players. Their target audience is players willing to drop money to read more articles when there are already of hundreds of free magic articles on the Web. The PT coverage is on Twitch and while obviously the hardcore players and fans watch it, the coverage itself is largely a promotional vehicle for the game aimed at new or casual players. The type of content that is appropriate for these two groups is completely different, especially when you're trying to attract more players to the games or to play tournament Magic.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 10:53
|
|
|
With the coverage being very visible, do you folks think that having Judges be more visible in it would be a good idea? The Chapin call for example would have been a good starting point for a small segment on Judge calls, what Judges do and don't, why we're needed there and similar stuff. Obviously you don't know how long a call is going to last, but with all the other stuff they have in there, I'd be surprised if there isn't time for a segment on something like that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 11:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 17:34 |
|
|
kizudarake posted:Savage summoning doesn't have a delayed trigger. God damnit I always get the two names mixed up 
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 11:07
|
|