|
Angry Grimace posted:I mean, if you really want to win by grinding out those type of advantages then at least have the decency to not also claim the moral high ground and just admit you don't a gently caress as long as you win. Or they could just you know, understand the context that there are rules, they are imperfect, and when they are followed to a disagreeable outcome its not a massive tragedy but whatever. Fingers McLongDong posted:No, it was more that the judge said he came by in X minutes before and said "it'll be time in 5 minutes," which the majority of people, including myself standing there spectating, didn't hear. Giving a generic amount of time and then not asking anyone to set a timer or actually announce when time is actually up seems really loose and not exactly professional for a rules-enforced event. I mean, there is no real solution for that, it's a ad-hoc side event in a crowded convention hall, there are a lot of ways that could go wrong, the Judge could have called time and its perfectly possible no one heard him, hell the Judge keeping time could have you know, had to run off for a bout of Diarrhea or something and to be fair a lot of ways it could go wrong even with the appropriate steps taken (clocks can fail) the only really reasonable solution is to go "OK well, let me make you aware now the time in the round has ended, please go to turns" and I'm confused about what your friend expected to be done. Ciprian Maricon fucked around with this message at 05:06 on Jan 11, 2016 |
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 05:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 13:07 |
|
|
Angry Grimace posted:The whole argument "well you gotta do anything to win" is one of those eye-rolling arguments where it doesn't actually extend to everything despite everyone acting like it does, e.g. monitoring what cards opposing teams are ordering (which isn't actually illegal) and doesn't actually apply to lots of things despite people saying it does. The George Brett incident is notable because its an outlier, the same way you don't see people arguing that guys don't run up the first base line in the runners box even though technically you are out if you run outside of it and there's a loving lot more money on the line. Golfers literally call penalties on themselves. I think this last part is the crux of it. We all understand that by the rule he was technically correct, and we all understand why the rule is necessary in general. Just don't pretend to not be a dick when you win this way or get offended when people point it out to you.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 05:14
|
|
|
This is gonna sound crazy but you can totally hold your opponent to playing by the rules and not be morally bankrupt mosnter akin to hitler.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 05:17
|
|
|
Ciprian Maricon posted:This is gonna sound crazy but you can totally hold your opponent to playing by the rules and not be morally bankrupt mosnter akin to hitler.  All joking aside, the naming rules are quite lenient and you can even choose to get this stuff confirmed between both parties. Not to mention, Magic is a game with a full set of rules and gets really pedantic. You're going to be required to be at least somewhat pedantic on some level.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 05:18
|
|
|
Boco_T posted:No Eldrazi decks in the top 32 at the Charlotte Open http://www.starcitygames.com/events/coverage/3676_top_32_modern_open_decklists.html A little surprised to only see three GR Tron lists in that group, I thought people were really excited for that deck? Or is that more in regards to what OGW will bring to the table? People playing that deck- are you trading in Emrakul to play Newlamog instead? Those lists only had one copy of the former vs five of the latter.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 05:20
|
|
|
Ciprian Maricon posted:Or they could just you know, understand the context that there are rules, they are imperfect, and when they are followed to a disagreeable outcome its not a massive tragedy but whatever. This is the dumbest loving argument because the underlying issue has nothing to do with an actual dispute as to how the rules work or that that the judges should have ruled differently - its that his opponent is a dick who grinds out obscure, irrelevant rules advantages just to win when he shouldn't have. You're just taking it as some kind of slight on Judgeship in general for no real reason other than "I am a judge and therefore the way we ruled is correct, both within the rules and morally."
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 05:31
|
|
|
Do we have a square on the bingo card for spirit of the rules vs. letter of the rules? We need one. Everyone who is upset by this, please give a way that the rules regarding pithing needle could be changed to prevent this from happening, given that only in top 8 playoff scenarios will each player know the specific cards in each others deck.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 05:34
|
|
|
jassi007 posted:Do we have a square on the bingo card for spirit of the rules vs. letter of the rules? We need one. Everyone who is upset by this, please give a way that the rules regarding pithing needle could be changed to prevent this from happening, given that only in top 8 playoff scenarios will each player know the specific cards in each others deck. Give judges discretion to resolve whether ambiguity actually exists.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 05:39
|
|
|
jassi007 posted:Do we have a square on the bingo card for spirit of the rules vs. letter of the rules? We need one. Everyone who is upset by this, please give a way that the rules regarding pithing needle could be changed to prevent this from happening, given that only in top 8 playoff scenarios will each player know the specific cards in each others deck. How about we discuss this.  So does this imply that judges unsleeved his cards and took the sleeves? First thought is who cares about cheap sleeves that just got you a game loss. But my next thought is "Shouldn't I be there if someone is going to be unsleeving my deck?". My jund deck is expensive as gently caress and I don't know how I feel about some random judge who hasn't washed his hands in 8 hours getting cheeto dust on my poo poo. Please tell me this doesn't happen.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 05:40
|
|
|
Angry Grimace posted:Give judges discretion to resolve whether ambiguity actually exists. I honestly don't want this. I want consistency in judge rulings.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 05:43
|
|
|
So when my opponent calls LED on putting needle is it a dick move to let that ride or am I obligated to let them take it back there, too? People misplay revoker and needle all the time and the only thing you can't let slide is an illegal name. Poorly naming poo poo is fine, and ambiguous names need to be cleared up, but I've seen too many bad revoker / needle plays to feel like you should ever give people the benefit of the doubt in a money game.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 05:47
|
|
|
jassi007 posted:I honestly don't want this. I want consistency in judge rulings. I'm struggling to find a scenario where changing the ruling in this scenario impacts anything ever. It's not like judges don't have a bullshit detector. They're just not allowed to do anything even when no actual ambiguity exists.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 05:48
|
|
|
Angry Grimace posted:This is the dumbest loving argument because the underlying issue has nothing to do with an actual dispute as to how the rules work or that that the judges should have ruled differently - its that his opponent is a dick who grinds out obscure, irrelevant rules advantages just to win when he shouldn't have. You're just taking it as some kind of slight on Judgeship in general for no real reason other than "I am a judge and therefore the way we ruled is correct, both within the rules and morally." I just think that maybe righteous indignation is uncalled for when the heinous crime in question can be accurately described as "enfored the rules of the game" Angry Grimace posted:Give judges discretion to resolve whether ambiguity actually exists. This would be so so so so very terrible you have no idea.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 05:49
|
|
|
if you guys need to willfully misinterpret your opponent to win might i suggest practicing instead of posting on the something awful forums about it?
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 05:51
|
|
|
Angry Grimace posted:Give judges discretion to resolve whether ambiguity actually exists. We tried that and then Erie v. Tompkins happened. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 05:58
|
|
|
bhsman posted:We tried that and then Erie v. Tompkins happened. Requesting information about this as well.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 06:02
|
|
|
bhsman posted:We tried that and then Erie v. Tompkins happened. Except Magic Judges don't have the power of stare decisis behind them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 06:02
|
|
|
In non-rules chat, having 2 Jaddi Offshoot out, attacking with an Ulamog and then casting Oblivion Sower is kind of funny. Kind of.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 06:06
|
|
|
Oh wait, that's an actual court case. Well, that'll make fine reading as well.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 06:06
|
|
|
Sigma-X posted:So when my opponent calls LED on putting needle is it a dick move to let that ride or am I obligated to let them take it back there, too? There's kind of a difference between being bad and not knowing how your cards work (Needle on LED) and accidentally naming the wrong card, when it's 100% obvious to everyone what you meant to name, because of the existence of an obscure, bad rare from 10 years ago. Also I've won matches by Needling Mox Opal. Sometimes your out is your opponent being bad.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 06:07
|
|
|
mandatory lesbian posted:naming the wrong card happens all the time and i've seen people accidentally target themselves for negative effects all the time, mostly with cards that are like "do something negative, then something positive" you could do poo poo like double click your mogg fanatic (or my favorite instance, bloodpyre elemental in alara limited) meaning to target something the opponent had but actually sacrifice it targetting itself. suicidesteve posted:Also I've won matches by Needling Mox Opal. Sometimes your out is your opponent being bad. Seems more scummy to me than the bob's bobo case but hey I'm not one to argue ad hom pro quoque. Zoness fucked around with this message at 06:17 on Jan 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 06:13
|
|
|
"Yeah, I'd like to name borborygmos" "Do you mean the one that is played in this list, and is in fact modern playable at all or" "No, the other one"
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 06:17
|
|
|
suicidesteve posted:Also I've won matches by Needling Mox Opal. Sometimes your out is your opponent being bad. IMO there's not a whole lot of difference between getting the win because your opponent doesn't know the intricacies of mana vs activated abilities, and because your opponent doesn't know there is another card named Borborygmos.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 06:17
|
|
|
Ciprian Maricon posted:IMO there's not a whole lot of difference between getting the win because your opponent doesn't know the intricacies of mana vs activated abilities, and because your opponent doesn't know there is another card named Borborygmos. I mean, one of them is reading the card on the table in front of you and one of them requires information entirely outside of the game but yeah other than that exactly the same
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 06:18
|
|
|
I feel like there is a major difference between losing because you didn't read what the card being played says, and losing because you didn't read what the card NOT being played says
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 06:19
|
|
|
Count Bleck posted:Fatespinner was not designed with limited in mind. Okay what's going on here? They chose to skip Combat, and it skipped combat?
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 06:20
|
|
|
Hellsau posted:Okay what's going on here? They chose to skip Combat, and it skipped combat? I got so ahead because on curve Fatespinner is stupid. First he skipped combat, then main phase, then combat again. Basically he didn't get to do anything with his aggro deck.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 06:21
|
|
|
Ciprian Maricon posted:IMO there's not a whole lot of difference between getting the win because your opponent doesn't know the intricacies of mana vs activated abilities, and because your opponent doesn't know there is another card named Borborygmos. One's going to come up in practical situations, the other one involves one of the worst rares in Ravnica block. I guess being willfully obtuse is a practical skill in judging, you must be a really good one
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 06:22
|
|
|
Angry Grimace posted:I mean, one of them is reading the card on the table in front of you and one of them requires information entirely outside of the game It's a super easy error that many players make, if all it took to understand the rules was "reading the card" there wouldn't be rules disputes, lots of interactions you likely take for granted require knowledge "outside of the game"
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 06:27
|
|
|
Zoness posted:[naming opal when it doesn't do anything]Seems more scummy to me than the bob's bobo case but hey I'm not one to argue ad hom pro quoque. In both the opal naming and the boryboros naming it is on the onus of both players to know how to play the game fully. At a money tournament, in the top 8, I cannot fathom any system that isn't strict rules enforcement that requires all players to know the rules of the game. There is no objectively better system than enforce all the rules as written and update the rules as written when there are conflicts between rules as written and rules as intended. In the case of the needle misplay, I would say the best course of action wizards could take is amending the naming rules such that when a card is named, if there are multiple cards that partially share that name, if a player has had perfect information revealing the existence of one and only one of those cards in their opponent's deck, then the naming is assumed in favor of the card in the opponent's deck. This would solve these edge cases by adding more rules, and would provide a consistent enforceable situation. In the case of the player not having perfect information revealing the existence of that card, you go with the current rules, which are "clear up any ambiguity" and "if a legal card is named, it's the one that was named." Holding an opponent to a bad needle/revoker naming is no different that holding them to their bad blocks that didn't account for lethal. Of course they'd have meant to block to prevent lethal if they were paying attention to the board state, but they weren't. Of course they'd have meant to name the right card if they were paying attention to the card pool, but they weren't - in both cases they were lazy and their mental shortcuts let them down. As for "jedi mind tricking" people into making bad plays, I see that as part of the bluff game, and I haven't gotten mad when people test my chalices (it's just a trigger that counters, it's not preventing them from casting) and I don't get mad when people try to psych me out with their needle names. odiv posted:Speaking of mtgfinance, is there anyone else here from outside the US not seeing all of TCGPlayer's listings? It's making it hard for me to know what's actually being sold and at what price without going through a proxy/VPN. This is likely because the overwhelming majority of sellers don't sell outside of the US and I think TCGPlayer encourages not selling outside of the US because it's inviting a lot more fraud than what can be reasonably dealt with by tcgplayer / individual sellers. I know I don't sell overseas but I don't recall if it was due to all the fraud I've seen elsewhere / on ebay or if tcgplayer warns against it. Their default is US only though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 06:52
|
|
|
Ciprian Maricon posted:The guy could have literally said "That one big green red guy from the first Ravnica block" and that would have been completely acceptable, lmao at him for saying the one single word which didn't make it uniquely identifiable. lol i just noticed he'd have killed you with this name too
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 07:13
|
|
a guy didn't let me take back some bad blocks what a scumbag try hard
|
Madmarker posted:The big innovation in this list though is the complete abandonment of the affinity match up. If you were expecting something around 20% of people to run affinity would you still do that? I'm starting modern with merfolk, but when I walked around last week there were at least 6-8 affinity players out of 40 and at least one lantern player. 4 hurkyls is a lot of room in the sideboard, but basically conceding 1 match per night is not really too appealing either
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 07:15
|
|
|
Rules are rules, and its better if theres no room for discretion on stuff like this. Some fighting game tournaments used to let the other player choose whether or not to give their opponent an auto-loss if they paused during a match, and it sucked because people would flame anyone who did it and it caused a buttload of drama. If your opponent made a bad decision because they didn't know about a weird rules interaction, would you let them take it back? I mean, tough break for the guy that hosed up, but sucks to suck I guess. Hopefully he learns from this and plays better in the future.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 07:20
|
|
|
black potus posted:lol i just noticed he'd have killed you with this name too lmao i totally changed my mind, context or something, you totally knew what i meant to type, and in internet burns as well as magic, i think we can all agree that intent, not what is said or posted is what truly matters TheKingofSprings posted:One's going to come up in practical situations, the other one involves one of the worst rares in Ravnica block. I don't know man it seems kinda weird to be perfectly comfortable beating some relatively new guy, or even an experienced dude who didn't know a rule interaction and be all "RTFC man" because its common and they should just know better but then get bent out of shape when someone loses a game because they named wrong on their needle and start getting huffing about the opponent being a scumbag because that rule is more obscure. Makes it seem like "winning with rules errors that I know enough to avoid is totally fine, but winning with a rules error I could realistically make is totally wrong and bad" Sometimes you win/lose because of the rules, its how it goes. Ciprian Maricon fucked around with this message at 07:33 on Jan 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 07:22
|
|
|
None of this ever would have happened if he'd had a gun
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 07:31
|
|
|
rabidsquid posted:None of this ever would have happened if he'd had a gun You brought a gun to a card game? Bad idea.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 07:39
|
|
|
This is the highlight of this show and I won't actually enjoy watching this ever, right? Because that was hilarious.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 08:15
|
|
|
gwrtheyrn posted:If you were expecting something around 20% of people to run affinity would you still do that? I'm starting modern with merfolk, but when I walked around last week there were at least 6-8 affinity players out of 40 and at least one lantern player. 4 hurkyls is a lot of room in the sideboard, but basically conceding 1 match per night is not really too appealing either If I'm expecting everyone going know that 20% of the people are going to.be playing affinity I would hope to dodge / get lucky and play to beat the people who stomp out affinity in the first three rounds.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 08:17
|
|
|
Sigma-X posted:This is the highlight of this show and I won't actually enjoy watching this ever, right? Yu-Gi-Oh is a thriller/drama series based around high stakes gambling with a story that ties into a conspiracy that dates back to the Egyptian Empire. Take that as you will.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 08:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 13:07 |
|
|
Sigma-X posted:This is the highlight of this show and I won't actually enjoy watching this ever, right? Yugioh is actually an entertaining show for a long while when it's not about friendship bullshit E: then in a stunning reversal of JoJos, goes to poo poo when they go to Egypt, a phase which lasts through 4 seasons of the next show up until they hop onto motorcycles in the one after where it's good for about 60
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 08:35
|
|