|
Entropic posted:Hands up if you have ever actually set a stop on your own Beginning of Combat step on MTGO as opposed to on your opponent's. I've thought about it; since one time I accidentally left my main phase with a lethal amount of Aethertide Whales and a Spontaneous Artist on the field. Marvelous Paradox is such a dumb deck.
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 05:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 22:53 |
|
|
80s James Hetfield posted:Lol let's just make tokens of all the phase names on MTGO where you can put stops at and then at the start of each phase you slam the tokenn down on the table while bellowing to your opponent. Let's use chess clocks while we're at it. It's the obvious way to solve slow play! What could go wrong? It works fine for MTGO!
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 05:52
|
|
|
I like how this is only ever an issue whenever we don't have a strong, relevant build around card with the words "at the beginning of [your/the] combat step" loving printed on them. Case in point, Goblin Rabblemaster, Desecration Demon.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 05:53
|
|
|
Entropic posted:Let's use chess clocks while we're at it. It's the obvious way to solve slow play! What could go wrong? It works fine for MTGO! Table judges now carry cattle prods. If your turn takes more than 45 seconds they jam it into your armpit
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 05:54
|
|
|
Count Bleck posted:I like how this is only ever an issue whenever we don't have a strong, relevant build around card with the words "at the beginning of [your/the] combat step" loving printed on them. Right, because people will then actually have a reason to care about it instead of pretending to care about it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 05:55
|
|
|
80s James Hetfield posted:Table judges now carry cattle prods. If your turn takes more than 45 seconds they jam it into your armpit Violence against Magic players is the only way to play.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 06:01
|
|
|
suicidesteve posted:MMA was very close to being worth it. Unless you were me, then you played 10 boxes and your best cards were one (1) Dark Confidant and a foil Vedalken Shackles. Yup. >= $5 Uncommons in MMA (per this site): Finks, Path, Spell Snare, Helix, Manamorphose >= $5 Uncommons in MM15: Eldrazi Temple It's not the #1 metric for measuring a set's worth but it's nice to see. I wonder if Wizards looked at the EV of MMA and purposefully designed MM15 to be lower in that regard.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 06:03
|
|
|
Jabor posted:Requiring people to declare combat twice every time they want to attack is not going to work out. If you want to skip phases with shortcuts I think its fair to except a drawback from time to time as the attacking player. Trying to prevent gotcha's against a defending player to moving the gotcha to the attacking player is silly. It only comes up because vehicles, manlands, and pre-combat triggers exist fairly often in this standard. We can agree to disagree. Just makes sense to me to treat every phase with similar rules instead of doing one of them backwards.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 06:04
|
|
|
Sickening posted:If you want to skip phases with shortcuts I think its fair to except a drawback from time to time as the attacking player. Trying to prevent gotcha's against a defending player to moving the gotcha to the attacking player is silly. It only comes up because vehicles, manlands, and pre-combat triggers exist fairly often in this standard. Personally, I think it makes a lot more sense to penalize a player who is deliberately trying to muddy the water in order to gain an edge, as opposed to penalizing an innocent player for assuming their opponent was acting in good faith. That's just me though.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 06:10
|
|
|
Jabor posted:Personally, I think it makes a lot more sense to penalize a player who is deliberately trying to muddy the water in order to gain an edge, as opposed to penalizing an innocent player for assuming their opponent was acting in good faith. That's just me though. I agree with you on that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 06:11
|
|
|
If they wanted to troll MTGFinance, they'd reprint Mishra's Bauble at common in MM17.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 06:22
|
|
|
Let me see if I have this right: basically, you have to tell your opponent what you're going to do in a future phase, letting them preempt it, before actually being able to go that phase? That seems counterintuitive, especially when it works very differently online. If someone says "go to beginning of combat" they shouldn't have to say what they plan to do there to get the priority that the rules grant them, I'd think. If they don't explicitly say "beginning of combat" and instead say "combat", you get the murky hell that started this whole mess, but I feel like it's weird that the physical game apparently disallows something that the online version allows.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 06:25
|
|
|
GeneX posted:Let me see if I have this right: basically, you have to tell your opponent what you're going to do in a future phase, letting them preempt it, before actually being able to go that phase? This is a genuine ask, I'm not trolling. I can't think of one right now.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 06:29
|
|
|
GeneX posted:Let me see if I have this right: basically, you have to tell your opponent what you're going to do in a future phase, letting them preempt it, before actually being able to go that phase? If you let people play the same word game with "beginning of combat" and "combat" that they used to play with "combat" and "attacks", you haven't actually solved anything. Just do stuff in your main phase unless you have an actual reason to want to do it in the beginning of combat step.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 06:31
|
|
|
If you let people play the same word game with "I am going to pass priority in my main phase. If you also pass, we will go to my beginning of combat, where I want to retain priority. I don't want to declare attackers yet. Once I pass priority there, you will have the chance to do things like tap my creatures before I declare attackers. I pass priority." and "combat" that they used to play with "combat" and "attacks", you haven't actually solved anything.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 06:34
|
|
|
Lottery of Babylon posted:If you let people play the same word game with "I am going to pass priority in my main phase. If you also pass, we will go to my beginning of combat, where I want to retain priority. I don't want to declare attackers yet. Once I pass priority there, you will have the chance to do things like tap my creatures before I declare attackers. I pass priority." and "combat" that they used to play with "combat" and "attacks", you haven't actually solved anything. Have you figured out where exactly you want to draw the line, or is just "somewhere in between these two"?
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 06:37
|
|
|
GeneX posted:Let me see if I have this right: basically, you have to tell your opponent what you're going to do in a future phase, letting them preempt it, before actually being able to go that phase? If you activate your Mutavault in your main phase, how is that any different from saying "activate Mutavault in beginning of combat?" Absolutely nothing changes. Either way your opponent is going to be able to do whatever they wanted to and you have to act first. Why is this so hard to understand? Entropic posted:You may have a gambling problem. It was fun to draft?
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 06:39
|
|
|
Jabor posted:Have you figured out where exactly you want to draw the line, or is just "somewhere in between these two"? The line is, I think very simple. State why you the AP need to stop in beginning of combat, like "activate raging ravine, trigger rabblemaster, trigger toolcraft exmplar crew heart of kiran" If there is no reason that isn't "I'm trying to gotcha my opponent" then you are fine either doing most things in main phase like activating a man land, or just being explicit about your trigger you need to acknowledge in beginning of combat. Judges aren't going to screw you if you go "begin combat, exemplar trigger, then crew heart"
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 06:42
|
|
|
suicidesteve posted:If you activate your Mutavault in your main phase, how is that any different from saying "activate Mutavault in beginning of combat?" Absolutely nothing changes. Either way your opponent is going to be able to do whatever they wanted to and you have to act first. Why is this so hard to understand? But what about the reverse sorceries that can only be cast during the opponent's main phase now they get to use those!!
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 06:43
|
|
|
Jabor, if it will get you to stop pretending this is an unsolvable slippery slope, I'll suggest explicitly specifying that you don't mean declare attackers as the line to draw. "Combat, but not declare attackers" seems pretty drat unambiguous and ungameable, and I'm not sure what the benefit is of not letting you say that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 06:48
|
|
|
Lottery of Babylon posted:Jabor, if it will get you to stop pretending this is an unsolvable slippery slope, I'll suggest explicitly specifying that you don't mean declare attackers as the line to draw. "Combat, but not declare attackers" seems pretty drat unambiguous and ungameable, and I'm not sure what the benefit is of not letting you say that. The benefit is that it doesn't allow you to try to word game the opponent into doing things in your main phase while having no real downside. Edit: Like I said above, I don't have a problem with this as long as you do something. But even then, anything you did probably could have been done main phase so you just wasted like 30 seconds changing phases for no reason. suicidesteve fucked around with this message at 07:00 on Feb 24, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 06:54
|
|
|
Lottery of Babylon posted:Jabor, if it will get you to stop pretending this is an unsolvable slippery slope, I'll suggest explicitly specifying that you don't mean declare attackers as the line to draw. "Combat, but not declare attackers" seems pretty drat unambiguous and ungameable, and I'm not sure what the benefit is of not letting you say that. That seems like a reasonable start. Is "combat, not attackers" sufficient?
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 06:56
|
|
|
suicidesteve posted:The benefit is that it doesn't allow you to try to word game the opponent into doing things in your main phase while having no real downside. How are you getting word-gamed into doing anything by someone who is explicitly spelling out for you that they're not moving to declare attackers yet? Jabor posted:That seems like a reasonable start. Sure, anything that specifically denies moving to the attackers phase.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 07:00
|
|
|
Lottery of Babylon posted:Sure, anything that specifically denies moving to the attackers phase. Okay. What about "*mumble mumble* attackers?"
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 07:01
|
|
|
Lottery of Babylon posted:How are you getting word-gamed into doing anything by someone who is explicitly spelling out for you that they're not moving to declare attackers yet?
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 07:07
|
|
|
The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Games > Traditional Games > Magic the Gathering: Combat?
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 07:15
|
|
|
Jabor posted:Okay. What about "*mumble mumble* attackers?" No more an issue under my proposal than it is under the current rules. The current rules let you say "I'll use [ability] in beginning of combat before attackers", but you don't seem concerned about people saying the first half of that under their breath or in swedish. Chill la Chill posted:Because it was never done that way and it was never explicit until recently. I think we can both agree that being explicit here is good, which is exactly what the change is doing. But let's not pretend that anyone ever actually said "combat, before attackers..." as a rule. You had a couple do that, but in the years I spent playing competitive magic, it was understood that it was meant to be ambiguous unless said otherwise. That people thought themselves clever for doing so. People would regularly say "combat?" and the NAP had to play a guessing game of what they meant. The onus should be on the AP, not the NAP, to be explicit. The rule change does that, and it actually makes people say "BOC, I....", which is exactly what you yourself want people to do in your example, unlike before. The issue is that the current rules don't let you move to beginning of combat even if you're being explicit. See the block of legalese that started this discussion.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 07:17
|
|
|
Lottery of Babylon posted:The issue is that the current rules don't let you move to beginning of combat even if you're being explicit. See the block of legalese that started this discussion. If you have nothing to do there, why do you care? What benefit is there to going there instead of doing it in the main phase?
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 07:18
|
|
|
Lottery of Babylon posted:The issue is that the current rules don't let you move to beginning of combat even if you're being explicit. See the block of legalese that started this discussion. they only don't let you move to the beginning of combat if you're going to then go '...and i pass priority'
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 07:19
|
|
|
Chill la Chill posted:If you have nothing to do there, why do you care? What benefit is there to going there instead of doing it in the main phase? let players go to the beginning of combat as active players but disqualify every single person who ever does it with nothing to do for slow play
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 07:20
|
|
|
Me, in the tank playing against a non-blue player who can't possibly have a cryptic command: *thinks* Hm I will activate my celestial colonnade in my main phase* !!!!! No...I will activate it in my beginning of combat, much classier *nods sagely* Opponent, thinking: !!! He has done it in his beginning of combat, and not the main phase! He is truly a force to be reckoned with! *readies summoning gauntlet for the path to exile which will hit it no matter which phase it is activated in* Chill la Chill fucked around with this message at 07:24 on Feb 24, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 07:21
|
|
|
Lottery of Babylon posted:No more an issue under my proposal than it is under the current rules. The current rules let you say "I'll use [ability] in beginning of combat before attackers", but you don't seem concerned about people saying the first half of that under their breath or in swedish. It's about incentives. There's no incentive to be unclear that you're activating an ability, the best case is exactly the same as if you were clear about it, and there are plenty of potential downsides. On the other hand, there are big upsides for you if you trick your opponent into acting at the wrong time, but no real downsides. If someone is deliberately muddying the waters, they should be the ones disadvantaged by that, not their opponent.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 07:26
|
|
|
Chill la Chill posted:If you have nothing to do there, why do you care? Do you see that ability that triggers at the beginning of combat phase? That's why people care. Because that card, when its ability triggers, is able to crew vehicles, or attack for 3, and both of those are relevant to Standard right now. I literally say, "Beginning of combat phase" when I play Magic, then I "declare attackers" and now I'm being told that apparently I've been doing it wrong this whole time because some judge in greater Fuckistan said so.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 08:15
|
|
|
I've read every post in this thread and I'm very confused. What's the big deal with passing priority in the main, then getting it back in the pre-construction phase or whatever. Even if 99% of the time there's no difference between doing something in your main and doing it then, wouldn't it be consistent to let players go there?Veyrall posted:I literally say, "Beginning of combat phase" when I play Magic, then I "declare attackers" and now I'm being told that apparently I've been doing it wrong this whole time because some judge in greater Fuckistan said so. This is what I don't get. What's so objectionable about this phrasing?
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 08:33
|
|
|
Veyrall posted:Take a good, long look at this card. e: This was initially overly snarky, sorry about that. The gist of it is that nothing about the shortcut prevents you from doing what you want with Toolcraft Exemplar. If you say "combat?", and your opponent says "sure", you end up in the beginning of combat step just after the exemplar trigger has resolved. See the earlier discussion starting from here. Jabor fucked around with this message at 10:05 on Feb 24, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 09:33
|
|
|
That explicitly wasn't what happened with the On camera match that caused it, Combat lead to declare attackers with no chance to crew a heart and get the +X/0 trigger from one of the players creatures
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 10:08
|
|
|
Stormgale posted:That explicitly wasn't what happened with the On camera match that caused it, Combat lead to declare attackers with no chance to crew a heart and get the +X/0 trigger from one of the players creatures Targeted triggers work differently - you have to acknowledge them (by choosing a target) when they happen. You need to at least point out their existence when you propose combat (e.g. "combat, trigger Weldfast Engineer"), otherwise they're missed. And if you've missed the trigger there's nothing on the stack to resolve, so straight into declare attackers. Note that the player in question completely and absolutely played themselves, since even if the shortcut wasn't a thing at all they would still have been unable to pump their vehicle with the trigger. Which goes back to my earlier comment where the shortcut only affects people negatively when they to be unnecessarily clever for no reason at all.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 10:23
|
|
|
Jabor posted:Targeted triggers work differently - you have to acknowledge them (by choosing a target) when they happen. You need to at least point out their existence when you propose combat (e.g. "combat, trigger Weldfast Engineer"), otherwise they're missed. And if you've missed the trigger there's nothing on the stack to resolve, so straight into declare attackers. I think the punishment for making a bad play should be constrained to the actual consequences of the route the player chooses to take. Like that dude totally messed up by trying to be too cute, but it seemed like poor sportsmanship from his opponent to call a judge to further punish the play by moving the game to declaring attackers when that clearly wasn't his opponent's intent.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 10:28
|
|
|
akulanization posted:I hope you are interpreting the post correctly and I'm wrong, I read the third paragraph as a strong statement that using the word "Combat" takes you to declare attackers even if that would not be normal procedure. Yes, you absolutely did interpret my post incorrectly and Jabor's interpretation is right: I didn't rule on the Toolcraft Exemplar funtime. It's also not the first time you've misinterpreted that post  Everyone just needs to stop having huge ego boners for doing stuff in beginning of combat (and WotC needs to stop printing cards that do stuff at the start of combat) akulanization posted:I think the punishment for making a bad play should be constrained to the actual consequences of the route the player chooses to take. Like that dude totally messed up by trying to be too cute, but it seemed like poor sportsmanship from his opponent to call a judge to further punish the play by moving the game to declaring attackers when that clearly wasn't his opponent's intent. The consequences of choosing to go to combat is that you're proposing you're in the beginning of combat step with your opponent holding priority. It's loving Professional REL, you're entirely expected to know how Tournament Shortcuts work
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 13:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 22:53 |
|
|
C-Euro posted:Yup.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 13:48
|
|
