|
Sickening posted:The more I play competitively the more you learn the little angles that are actually totally legal. I would say a lot of players that show up to competitive events don't realize that you can't let your opponent forget one of his creatures have lifelink. It is legal for you to also "forget" with your opponent but if you tell a judge that you knew you are going to get dq'd. This seems completely backwards from the rest of the rules like triggers and such and can catch a lot of people off guard. This discussion, passing priority by making eye contact, and gotcha sidegames in general, are the reasons why my friend is correct when he says high level magic should only ever be played with MTGO. Too bad it's terrible. This example situation with having to act weird around the concept of specifically declaring attackers and blockers so as to not give anything away is pretty hosed up as they are fundamental mechanics in this game. It's the most straightforward situation that I've had problems with in the past even though it shows up in other ways like modal choices vs counterspells. Aside from the problems with body language and intention this interaction causes, I think my game design problem with this situation has always been the overbearing burden placed on the defender. Unlike the APNAP logic used for spells and abilities, the majority of the game, this interaction does not place the burden of action on the attacker. For every other interaction of the game, the "actor/active player" must hold priority and do other actions in response to their initial action lest they forego the opportunity. However, when attacking, the actor attacks, can do absolutely nothing else, implicitly passes priority, and when the defender goes to block, can claim that other effects were incoming. It completely flies against the internal game logic of the rest of the game. 
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 03:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 04:24 |
|
|
I would think it's just common courtesy to at least say the name of the card you are placing on the table, but in the topsy turvy world of competitive Magic shaking someone's hand is a grave insult. My antiquated plebian ideas have no place, I suppose.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 03:22
|
|
|
just rust posted:I would think it's just common courtesy to at least say the name of the card you are placing on the table, but in the topsy turvy world of competitive Magic shaking someone's hand is a grave insult. My antiquated plebian ideas have no place, I suppose. Gotta be careful, they might have influenza.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 03:24
|
|
|
Chill la Chill posted:Gotta be careful, they might have influenza. Yeah, after you win, make sure you put on a glove before you go in for the handshake.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 03:28
|
|
|
There's definitely some middle ground between spelling out every mistake your opponent might make for them and being sneaky and misleading to gain some EV.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 03:30
|
|
|
*Goes to fetch* "Nuh uh, you failed to respond to me. Look at the top four. That's right. Now, say my name." "Aven Mindcensor" "You're goddamn right"
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 03:35
|
|
|
Skyl3lazer posted:Why wouldn't I allow my opponent to misplay at a competitive tournament? I play a mostly Japanese deck and just announce my spells. If my opponent wants to try to lightning bolt my Tracker when I have 2 clues in play, I'm not going to stop him. As long as you announce them in Japanese I don't see the problem here little munchkin posted:I can't tell if this is meant to be a joke or serious, but just in case, I don't have perfect information about my opponents deck/hand/gameplan, and therefore can't identify whether something is a misplay or not. he's being sarcastic and agreeing with you
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 04:04
|
|
|
You'd think Don't Be A Dickbag would be a pretty easy rule of thumb for people to agree on and play by, but apparently not.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 04:07
|
|
|
Chill la Chill posted:This example situation with having to act weird around the concept of specifically declaring attackers and blockers so as to not give anything away is pretty hosed up as they are fundamental mechanics in this game. It's the most straightforward situation that I've had problems with in the past even though it shows up in other ways like modal choices vs counterspells. Aside from the problems with body language and intention this interaction causes, I think my game design problem with this situation has always been the overbearing burden placed on the defender. Unlike the APNAP logic used for spells and abilities, the majority of the game, this interaction does not place the burden of action on the attacker. For every other interaction of the game, the "actor/active player" must hold priority and do other actions in response to their initial action lest they forego the opportunity. However, when attacking, the actor attacks, can do absolutely nothing else, implicitly passes priority, and when the defender goes to block, can claim that other effects were incoming. It completely flies against the internal game logic of the rest of the game. All of this is completely solved by explicitly announcing each phase of your turn, every turn. I mean, your entire conundrum is solved by just saying "moving to declare blockers" since the attacker has to poo poo or get off the pot at that point. It's...honestly a pretty basic rules interaction so it seems a sort of odd thing to harp about.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 04:15
|
|
|
Chill la Chill posted:Unlike the APNAP logic used for spells and abilities, the majority of the game, this interaction does not place the burden of action on the attacker. For every other interaction of the game, the "actor/active player" must hold priority and do other actions in response to their initial action lest they forego the opportunity. However, when attacking, the actor attacks, can do absolutely nothing else, implicitly passes priority, and when the defender goes to block, can claim that other effects were incoming. It completely flies against the internal game logic of the rest of the game. None of this is true though. You have priority in your declare attackers step. You just don't usually need or use it Let me solve this whole issue with 5 really easy to say words: "Before blocks" if you're attacking and "Go to blocks?" if you're blocking. Now nobody can "get you!"
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 04:36
|
|
|
suicidesteve posted:None of this is true though. You have priority in your declare attackers step. You just don't usually need or use it 
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 04:53
|
|
|
A big flaming stink posted:All of this is completely solved by explicitly announcing each phase of your turn, every turn. I mean, your entire conundrum is solved by just saying "moving to declare blockers" since the attacker has to poo poo or get off the pot at that point. I know that it is a different step. I know how the rules work. However, it is clearly unintuitive and nothing is gained from keeping it that way. There is no reason to have a weird timing trick here and removing it is just as beneficial as removing damage on the stack or mana burn.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 05:45
|
|
|
suicidesteve posted:None of this is true though. You have priority in your declare attackers step. You just don't usually need or use it I think my most common action in my own attackers step is to activate Pendelhaven with Exalted triggers on the stack, since you can't wait and do it after those resolve. The second one's a bit weird. If you're the blocking player, if you pass priority after attackers are declared, you're now moving on to declaring blockers. Unless there's something on the stack resolving, they don't get priority again after passing it to you. Their next opportunity to act is only after you declare your blocks. But I agree with the intent. I always try to clearly go through the combat steps, and correct anyone who says stuff like, "In response to you declaring that creature as a blocker." MTGO's garbage, but it is really good at helping newer players learn how these things really work.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 05:47
|
|
|
Chill la Chill posted:I know that it is a different step. I know how the rules work. However, it is clearly unintuitive and nothing is gained from keeping it that way. There is no reason to have a weird timing trick here and removing it is just as beneficial as removing damage on the stack or mana burn. There's not really a weird timing trick with the declare attackers step. Judges could (and probably should) make it clear that if you declare your attacks, and don't explicitly hold priority, it's assumed that you're passing and allowing your opponent to block, and then there'd literally be no issues whatsoever. The only really weird timing trick is the end of combat step (had niche relevance at best back in the day; is entirely unnecessary now), and if the attacker wants to do something in the beginning of combat step (the issues with that having been addressed by judge rulings). Actually removing a step from combat (other than the end of combat step) would require mountains of errata.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 05:55
|
|
|
Jabor posted:There's not really a weird timing trick with the declare attackers step. Judges could (and probably should) make it clear that if you declare your attacks, and don't explicitly hold priority, it's assumed that you're passing and allowing your opponent to block, and then there'd literally be no issues whatsoever.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 06:03
|
|
|
No I have never seen that ever. The solution to this is that if you let your opponent get all the way to lining up blocks you're deemed to have passed priority to them. You have to say you're holding priority after stacking a spell so make it the same here A real good angle is someone got me with was saying "go to beginning of combat" instead of "go to attacks". If the defender does something, well you're still in you first main and can, say, play another creature to crew something after they've used up their tapper or w/e.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 06:23
|
|
|
Fuzzy Mammal posted:A real good angle is someone got me with was saying "go to beginning of combat" instead of "go to attacks". If the defender does something, well you're still in you first main and can, say, play another creature to crew something after they've used up their tapper or w/e. This actually doesn't work any more. It's literally impossible (via judge ruling) for the active player to pass out of their main phase and play stuff in the beginning of combat step, unless they explicitly point out why they want to change steps. If you just say "go to combat", it's assumed you move to declaring attackers. If you say "go to beginning of combat", it's assumed you move to declare attackers. If you actually really do want to do something in the beginning of combat, you have to say something like "go to beginning of combat, do you want to do anything with your floating mana first?", or otherwise call out what you're intending to do.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 06:33
|
|
|
Jabor posted:This actually doesn't work any more. It's literally impossible (via judge ruling) for the active player to pass out of their main phase and play stuff in the beginning of combat step, unless they explicitly point out why they want to change steps. Uh, start of combat is a literal phase, as anyone who played with Goblin Rabblemaster should well know. Also I'm a bit confused of the talk of "holding priority" after you declare you attackers. There's nothing to hold, both players get a round of priority after attackers and blockers are declared, unless I've grossly misunderstood something about this game for the entire time I've been playing. e: Hell, in this standard we have Toolcraft Exemplar which is explicitly pumped during the start of combat phase.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 06:56
|
|
|
A big flaming stink posted:Uh, start of combat is a literal phase, as anyone who played with Goblin Rabblemaster should well know. http://blogs.magicjudges.org/whatsupdocs/2016/05/26/attacking-blocking-and-shortcuts/ Yes, it's a step. You're not allowed to actually use it (as the attacker) unless you explicitly call out why it matters that you're doing something in the beginning of combat step and not just doing it in your main phase.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 07:18
|
|
|
With regards to holding priority - the attacker gets priority first after they declare attacks. If they want to do something, they can (and should) just say "I attack with these dudes and play this". It's the same argument as to why you have to say "I cast infernal tutor and in response, break this LED", instead of being able to cast your spell and fish for a response from your opponent before doing the next step. Jabor fucked around with this message at 07:35 on Oct 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 07:27
|
|
|
Even one of the commentators at GP Atlanta was unclear on the "beginning of combat" rules. It's a very relevant step on all levels of play, making it an explicit step seems to me like it would make things less prone to miscommunication, but I don't have a rigid grasp of the rules.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 07:43
|
|
|
Jabor posted:There's not really a weird timing trick with the declare attackers step. Judges could (and probably should) make it clear that if you declare your attacks, and don't explicitly hold priority, it's assumed that you're passing and allowing your opponent to block, and then there'd literally be no issues whatsoever. End of combat is actually useful for effects like Celestial Flare
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 08:15
|
|
|
ThePeavstenator posted:End of combat is actually useful for effects like Celestial Purge You can cast those in the combat damage step to the same effect. It had niche use when damage still went on the stack, because your opponent might have floated mana from something that died in combat and you wanted that to go away first. It's pretty much superfluous now though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 08:17
|
|
|
Jabor posted:You can cast those in the combat damage step to the same effect. The idea is to cast it at the end of combat after your opponent has had their creatures die.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 08:19
|
|
|
ThePeavstenator posted:The idea is to cast it at the end of combat after your opponent has had their creatures die. Which you can do in the combat damage step.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 08:21
|
|
|
Whenever I do anything in a game of magic, I make sure to clearly announce "I'm gay." Now granted, this has no bearing on the game state or the functionality of the cards, but I wouldn't want to gain an unfair advantage in the event that my opponent were to suddenly become aware of my sexuality and thus be distracted at a crucial moment.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 08:27
|
|
|
Jabor posted:Which you can do in the combat damage step. Not for something like Geist of St. Traft. It would be like removing the cleanup step from a turn. It usually functions as an extension of the end step but it being there does serve a purpose in some cases.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 08:28
|
|
|
ThePeavstenator posted:Not for something like Geist of St. Traft. It would be like removing the cleanup step from a turn. It usually functions as an extension of the end step but it being there does serve a purpose in some cases. You're right, I totally forgot about end-of-combat triggers. mea culpa.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 08:33
|
|
|
I do agree that it is kind of awkaward to break the pattern of "Game Action - Priority - Game Action - Priority" tho.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 08:41
|
|
|
ThePeavstenator posted:Not for something like Geist of St. Traft. It would be like removing the cleanup step from a turn. It usually functions as an extension of the end step but it being there does serve a purpose in some cases. You could replace it with "at the beginning of your post combat main phase" and it would be pretty much the same, timing wise. A little wordier of course. I've thought about this a lot  . I've thought they could add after to the list of trigger words too, then it would just be "after combat, sacrifice it"
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 11:02
|
|
|
What grinds my gears the most is when people say "combat?" or "attacks?" or something like that, I say OK, and then they try to activate their manlands. Then when I inform them that it's too late to activate their manlands, they try to backtrack and say oh I meant go to beginning of combat. Unless you're floating mana or playing with mana drain, the transition from main phase to beginning of combat is not really something you need to announce that often, whereas going to declare attackers is very relevant, especially in a format with manlands, cryptics, drowner of hope, etc.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 11:11
|
|
|
Bonus posted:What grinds my gears the most is when people say "combat?" or "attacks?" or something like that, I say OK, and then they try to activate their manlands. Then when I inform them that it's too late to activate their manlands, they try to backtrack and say oh I meant go to beginning of combat. Unless you're floating mana or playing with mana drain, the transition from main phase to beginning of combat is not really something you need to announce that often, whereas going to declare attackers is very relevant, especially in a format with manlands, cryptics, drowner of hope, etc. Jabor posted:http://blogs.magicjudges.org/whatsupdocs/2016/05/26/attacking-blocking-and-shortcuts/ call a judge (and point them to that blog post if you need to). what your opponents are trying to do is literally disallowed, and they need to be gently slapped on the wrist until they figure out to stop doing it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 11:15
|
|
|
Hey folks, the name of any visible object is public information and if you don't know what a card is, your opponent is required to tell you truthfully if asked. If you want the Oracle text of it, call a judge who will give it to you (an opponent can refuse to tell you, but if they do tell you they can't lie about it). Seriously, everyone go read sections 4.1 and 4.2 of the MTR immediately and then continue this discussion, yeah?
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 12:03
|
|
|
We have literally one angle grinder at our store who waits until someone has a reason to look away from the board, then plays his creatures silently, and doesn't say anything when they look back. He'll drop without a word to the TO when he's lost the first round of FNM, and he begs for he begs for draft chaff even though we save it for new kids, so he can bulk it off to pay for his next higher level event.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 12:31
|
|
|
Jabor posted:http://blogs.magicjudges.org/whatsupdocs/2016/05/26/attacking-blocking-and-shortcuts/ The year of Desecration Demon instilled in me that "go to combat?" means beginning of combat.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 13:04
|
|
|
The only thing I've learned from the last few pages is that I never want to play competitive Magic apparently.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 13:13
|
|
|
ManMythLegend posted:The only thing I've learned from the last few pages is that I never want to play competitive Magic apparently. Which is sad because these situations basically never come up and playing magic at a higher level can be really fun. That said you'd be amazed at how many people playing at very high levels of competition don't actually know how the rules of the game function.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 13:24
|
|
|
the sexual Shiite posted:We have literally one angle grinder at our store who waits until someone has a reason to look away from the board, then plays his creatures silently, and doesn't say anything when they look back. Are you not required to announce game actions like putting spells on the stack?
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 13:46
|
|
|
the sexual Shiite posted:We have literally one angle grinder at our store who waits until someone has a reason to look away from the board, then plays his creatures silently, and doesn't say anything when they look back. This seems like an issue for the TO to address; they should make it clear the behaviour they have a problem with and that changing it is a requirement of their continued attendance. ManMythLegend posted:The only thing I've learned from the last few pages is that I never want to play competitive Magic apparently. From my experience (TO, L2 judge, regular Comp REL player) this sort of behaviour is a very tiny minority and most players are friendly and non-scummy whilst still trying to win.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 14:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 04:24 |
|
|
mfcrocker posted:From my experience (TO, L2 judge, regular Comp REL player) this sort of behaviour is a very tiny minority and most players are friendly and non-scummy whilst still trying to win. This is true in my experience. 95% of people at a comp REL event are perfectly reasonable. I personally prefer comp REL because I like being made to play with precision and high accountability. It makes the game and actions very clear and doesn't allow for the confusion of boardstates you get at casual events.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 14:50
|
|
