|
LGD posted:
How does your opponent, or the judge called to resolve your opponent's suspicions, know what you have or have not memorized? How are you going to prove that you haven't memorized any useful information about card orientation? It really seems like you have absolutely no experience with events in any sort of adversarial competitive environment whatsoever, nor do you have the ability to reason through what sort of things competitors might do in that sort of environment.
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2023 01:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 17:54 |
|
|
Also lmao that it's apparently a "superhuman feat" to notice and remember the orientation of like two cards in the deck. Do you also have difficulty remembering which shoe goes on which foot?
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2023 01:51
|
|
|
HootTheOwl posted:Seen + Oriented = marked, and it can't be shuffled. I am sorry I cannot explain this to you in a way you'll understand. I understand what you are saying perfectly, it's just incorrect - both logically (*of course* marked cards can be shuffled) and as a matter of the rules if we're talking about marked cards, you should refer to the rules on marked cards - and also maybe the tournament rules in addition to the infraction guide which makes it very clear what is being talked about (not marked cards) 3.10 Card Shuffling posted:If a player has had the opportunity to see any of the card faces of the deck being shuffled, the deck is no longer considered randomized and must be randomized again. Judge Commentary posted:This rule is to codify a point where the shuffle has been undone. If you shuffle and then maybe see the bottom card while putting the deck down, we have to start over. the infraction guide is pretty clearly referring to this, not the potential to determine information from card backs E: Jabor posted:How does your opponent, or the judge called to resolve your opponent's suspicions, know what you have or have not memorized? How are you going to prove that you haven't memorized any useful information about card orientation? Jabor posted:Also lmao that it's apparently a "superhuman feat" to notice and remember the orientation of like two cards in the deck. Do you also have difficulty remembering which shoe goes on which foot? LGD fucked around with this message at 02:03 on Feb 8, 2023 |
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2023 01:55
|
|
|
also they changed the mulligan rule a bunch since last kamigawa
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2023 02:02
|
|
|
LGD posted:I understand what you are saying perfectly You do not, and I'm going to have to take the L on it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2023 02:02
|
|
|
If you can look at the top card of your freshly-shuffled deck and know that it's not a particular card, your deck is not properly randomised. LGD, do you agree with that statement? Does it seem like a reasonable position to you? Or do you think that the statement is wrong, and that it's completely acceptable to have information about what the top card of your supposedly randomised deck is?
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2023 02:10
|
|
|
HootTheOwl posted:You do not, and I'm going to have to take the L on it. please at least consider the possibility that I really do, and you're taking the L on it because neither you or anyone else can cite the rule supporting your position because that rule does not actually exist when I made my original post and everyone responded vehemently I strongly considered the possibility I was wrong (or the rules had changed), and actually checked the tourney rules/infraction guide/etc. part of the reason I'm so convinced that my position is correct (beyond, again, some limited experience with this issue at a competitive REL) is that I couldn't find anything suggesting it was actually a rule, and multiple things implying it was "ok," if not ideal my request for an actual rules/policy citation wasn't rhetorical, nor was my request that you clarify what you meant with that bolded part of the infraction guide - I'd have happily admitted I was wrong with a "my bad" a few pages ago if anyone could have given me one e: Jabor posted:If you can look at the top card of your freshly-shuffled deck and know that it's not a particular card, your deck is not properly randomised. I disagree with that statement and so should anyone who isn't a blithering idiot first - pettily and trivially, if you have different face art and you've drawn played cards during a game you definitely know the top of your deck cannot contain one of those cards, but this does not prevent a deck from being said to have been randomized (or perhaps we can say no deck is ever truly sufficiently randomized) that might seem beside the point, but it's about as relevant as the scenarios you keep inventing secondly - pertinently and correctly, randomization and marked cards are considered different rules issues for a reason and handled differently, and incorrectly conflating the two leads to problems consider: let's say the deck was shuffled blindly by a judge during a contentious match and neither the judge or I saw any cards, but when I get my deck back I know my top card isn't a lightning bolt because they're in sleeves that are actually marked because in this scenario I'm a big 'ol cheater (obviously unacceptable, but also entirely besides the point because you're once again arguing against what you'd like me to be saying rather than what I actually am) did the third party judge not sufficiently randomize the deck? or is marking (and information that can be thereby derived) actually not the same thing as "sufficient" randomization? thirdly - please actually cite a rule or consider, y'know, kindly shutting the gently caress up? LGD fucked around with this message at 02:36 on Feb 8, 2023 |
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2023 02:17
|
|
|
DangerDongs posted:If there is a part of you that is willing to go to a LGS you should do that. Magic is a fun game, but it's a lot worse without "The Gathering." Yeah fwiw I go to a magic event pretty regularly each week and am definitely what you would call an invested player in terms of buying dumb pieces of cardboard I absolutely can't do arena though, it's just not for me. Way more fun with another person across from you, even if seldomly the person across from you is not the most fun to play with
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2023 02:40
|
|
|
Oh I think I see your problem, you don't know what a shuffled deck is. The rules cover this:quote:701.20a To shuffle a library or a face-down pile of cards, randomize the cards within it so that no player knows their order. This means you can't shuffle a deck with marked cards (because you know their order within the deck)
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2023 02:48
|
|
|
LGD posted:
I used to be a level 1 judge, and I can tell you that, at least at the places I have judged, in an REL-competative event, someone who's cards are oriented different ways would be viewed with suspicion, and probably be asked to orient their cards uniformly, at a minimum. As for your example, I would say 'no.' The judge did nor sufficiently randomize the deck, because he was prevented from doing so by the presence of marked cards. A deck is sufficiently randomized when players correctly believe that any given card remaining in the deck is equally likely to be in any given position in the deck. Anything that skews that means the deck is insufficiently randomized. Edit: Hoot is correct, in re: shuffling.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2023 02:49
|
|
|
Has anyone considered that it's very easy to shuffle without loving up your opponent's deck orientation and maybe you should do it regardless of whether the comprehensive floor rules say you don't have to?
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2023 02:55
|
|
|
Charity Porno posted:Has anyone considered that it's very easy to shuffle without loving up your opponent's deck orientation and maybe you should do it regardless of whether the comprehensive floor rules say you don't have to? yes, but nobody is arguing that you should go out of your way to gently caress up your opponent's deck orientation? and in fact I'd say you should make an active effort to avoid doing so? Abhorrence posted:As for your example, I would say 'no.' The judge did nor sufficiently randomize the deck, because he was prevented from doing so by the presence of marked cards. A deck is sufficiently randomized when players correctly believe that any given card remaining in the deck is equally likely to be in any given position in the deck. Anything that skews that means the deck is insufficiently randomized. let's say the second card down is marked, does the deck retroactively become insufficiently randomized? and since every deck in the history of the game is marked, doesn't this make "sufficient randomization" completely impossible, because there is always the potential for a scuff mark to disclose some information about a deck, and this information can be obtained during any deck search using the observational powers that people have been asserting?
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2023 03:06
|
|
|
LGD posted:thirdly - please actually cite a rule or consider, y'know, kindly shutting the gently caress up? From the MTR: quote:Randomization is defined as bringing the deck to a state where no player can have any information regarding the order or position of cards in any portion of the deck. If I know the position of a particular card, or even a little bit of information about it such as "it's not the top card", then the deck is not randomised. Contrary to your constant demands, the rules are not an exhaustive list of every possible situation that might come up. (If they were, they'd be the size of a phone book, with loopholes you could drive a truck through in every situation that wasn't explicitly listed yet). Instead the rules define generalities, with exceptions where appropriate, and judges interpret those rules to find the right answer for the situation at hand. -- I'll also note that you seem to be confused about cheating vs. general rule-breaking. Which exact cards are distinguishable has absolutely no bearing on whether or not my deck is marked. It might influence whether a judge decides that I did it intentionally in an attempt to gain an advantage, and hands me a disqualification - but even if they decide it was an innocent mistake, my deck is still marked.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2023 03:08
|
|
|
LGD posted:and since every deck in the history of the game is marked, doesn't this make "sufficient randomization" completely impossible, because there is always the potential for a scuff mark to disclose some information about a deck, and this information can be obtained during any deck search using the observational powers that people have been asserting? Not to wade into it, but on this point I don't think that's at all the case so long as you didn't know a sleeve got scuffed. And if it turned out one had been scuffed in a way to make it marked, afaik you'd be asked to replace the sleeve before the next game?
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2023 03:24
|
|
|
Jabor posted:From the MTR: LGD posted:since every deck in the history of the game is marked, doesn't this make "sufficient randomization" completely impossible, because there is always the potential for a scuff mark to disclose some information about a deck, and this information can be obtained during any deck search using the observational powers that people have been asserting? I know this seems like an annoying "gotcha," but it's actually the opposite (and how you're ostensibly encouraging me to read the rules) - you're applying a completely unreachable standard of "sufficient randomization" to a physical card game, where the presence of a single errant scratch means a deck can never be called sufficiently randomized (because you always potentially know you have/don't have that single card, and our threshold is apparently any information about the deck) but, y'know, that's not how things actually work in reality and once you acknowledge a form of "sufficient randomization" that acknowledges one or more cards in your deck will have distinguishing characteristics, card orientation becomes (and is explicitly listed) as just another observable fact about a card that might or might not mean it's a marked card
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2023 03:28
|
|
|
You seem to be treating "remembering whether a card was upside down or not" as some sort of extreme feat of memorization and I can't tell whether you're being disingenuous or if you have some sort of brain problem that renders it legitimately that difficult for you. It is not a challenging feat for 99% of the human population.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2023 03:32
|
|
|
Jabor posted:You seem to be treating "remembering whether a card was upside down or not" as some sort of extreme feat of memorization and I can't tell whether you're being disingenuous or if you have some sort of brain problem that renders it legitimately that difficult for you. it's not, neither is memorizing a particular scuff on the back of a single card memorizing an entire deck's worth of card orientations in the span of a normal fetchland search (again, not something I floated) is something else again (and you do really need to know at least the bulk of them for it to be particularly leverageable information - if the rest of a deck's orientation has been randomized/is unknown because you didn't memorize it it's literally just a "scuffed card" in the 60, except some number of other cards share an identical and changeable "scuff") I'll say I've felt you've been extremely disingenuous yourself over the course of a conversation, because I'll be discussing a scenario where I've made it clear we're assuming a deck has been shuffled such that all the orientations are randomized and you'll be saying I have "brain problems" because of course a completely different scenario you've just invented has only a single card in reverse orientation, and any idiot can see how that would give valuable and easily used information that scenario: stupidly easy for anyone to memorize, clearly a marked card, high potential to leverage for an advantage also: previously discussed, something that's still akin to a random scuff or nail press a card could pick up in play over the course of a tournament, probably a worse way to intentionally mark a single card than the scuff or nail press, and of dubious relevance to the other scenario LGD fucked around with this message at 03:53 on Feb 8, 2023 |
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2023 03:46
|
|
|
Show me in the rules where it says I can't fart continuously and waft it towards my opponent with my hand
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2023 03:53
|
|
|
LGD posted:it's not, neither is memorizing a particular scuff on the back of a single card You are totally missing the point. In a deck where roughly half the cards are upside down, memorising the orientation of one card is sufficient for you to be able to tell later on that it's definitely not the top card of your deck (if the top card is one of the ones that's turned around the other way). Does that seem like a humanly-viable feat to you?
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2023 04:01
|
|
|
Charity Porno posted:Show me in the rules where it says I can't fart continuously and waft it towards my opponent with my hand MTR 5.4 - Unsporting Conduct e: Jabor posted:You are totally missing the point. that's obviously a trivial feat for a given, specific, "card A" but: given contextual desirability of cards how did you know which card should be memorized as "specific card A" ahead of time? clearly there are scenarios where it's obvious, but many more where it isn't, and this same "not specific card A" information can be inadvertently disclosed (or gotten) by observing any other physical imperfection in the deck's sleeves at any time additionally, in the context of constructed, how do you know it's not card B, C, and/or D, the other copies of whatever "card A" is? vvv yes, but "scuffed sleeve" generally means "significant and clearly noticeable imperfection/wear," pretty much any deck will have one or more minor scratches, folds, and dings after being used for a game or two (and usually/always before by the standards of "any potential differentiation of any single card makes randomization impossible") vvv LGD fucked around with this message at 04:20 on Feb 8, 2023 |
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2023 04:02
|
|
|
Shouldn’t a scuffed sleeve be replaced immediately? I had a sleeve “break” at the bottom once and even though it wasn’t v easily visible no one complained when I swapped for a fresh sleeve, pointing out that even if you couldn’t easily see the separation there was a tactile difference and so qualified as a marked card. FNM though so not exactly a high enforcement environment.LGD posted:the "legend rule" also is pretty different, though I don't t think anyone gets riled up by that one (because the old rules sucked) Haha what the hell? Apparently “legendary” is now scoped to a single player’s battlefield and that player gets to choose one copy as a SBE if more than one copy exists? That’s not really a rules revision so much as a concept revision. Can’t wait to see what other stuff is completely different.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2023 04:06
|
|
|
Loucks posted:Shouldn’t a scuffed sleeve be replaced immediately? I had a sleeve “break” at the bottom once and even though it wasn’t v easily visible no one complained when I swapped for a fresh sleeve, pointing out that even if you couldn’t easily see the separation there was a tactile difference and so qualified as a marked card. FNM though so not exactly a high enforcement environment. Iirc way back in Lorwyn you could only have one Planeswalker of a given proper name in play, but now that's not the case so OOPS all Teferis!
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2023 04:17
|
|
|
Loucks posted:Shouldn’t a scuffed sleeve be replaced immediately? Yes, it should, because it creates a potentially marked card. Your opponent can call you on it, and the judges will determine if there's intent to the scuff, and will likely require you to resleeve it regardless of intent or not. It's the same reason they'll make you proxy a bent card if you're not using sleeves, even if it happened accidentally. As a side note, this entire conversation is ridiculous and I'm bordering on ignoring *yet another* person in this thread just because they can't help but be an obtuse, pedantic dick.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2023 04:19
|
|
|
there's no breakpoint at which there's enough cards in a deck boxed that it counts as marked cards so it's just better to not box a deck or do anything else that could be considered gaining unintended information. otherwise people would just box all their lands
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2023 04:24
|
|
|
The one thing I miss about the old legend rule was using garbage dollar rare planeswalkers to blow up the better versions my opponent controlled.  Kids these days don't think of Jace Beleren as a 3 mana kill spell for Jace, the Mind Sculptor in Worldwake era standard.Anyways, after like 8 years of hibernation I'm acting on my urges to start playing MTG again. Which mostly is just me updating my durdlely Ula's Temple modern deck with new and fancy cards. Probably so I can watch someone kill the Ula's Temple and watch me cry. You know. The Good Stuff.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2023 04:46
|
|
|
mycomancy posted:Iirc way back in Lorwyn you could only have one Planeswalker of a given proper name in play, but now that's not the case so OOPS all Teferis! I still think it should work like that, how can there possibly be two jaces around at the same time, no one plane could contain that much dorky energy 
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2023 04:49
|
|
|
Weird Pumpkin posted:I still think it should work like that, how can there possibly be two jaces around at the same time, no one plane could contain that much dorky energy one or more are clearly imposters unless it's Teferi I guess (and it seems like it often is) realtalk: I do think it's a good rule change, it's annoying to have unintended limitations in more extended/eternal formats, and it's probably at worst a net neutral in proliferation of 'walkers and 'walker-centric gameplay, since you're not incentivized to play them in full multiples as removal/backup in case of removal against opposing walkers
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2023 04:56
|
|
|
hastily detailing heisenbergs uncertainty principle to the convention center security staff as I'm ejected from the tournament
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2023 04:57
|
|
|
People played Jace Berelin just to remove an opponent's Jace, the Mind Sculptor back during caw blade days.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2023 05:02
|
|
|
Judge, In my opponent's deckbox there is a deck, that could potentially be illegally marked or perfectly legal. Unless we open the deck box there's no way to know which one it is. I choose to believe that we live in the dimension where my opponent has illegally marked his deck and thus because of such, you should hand me the match win. Wait, what do you mean I'm banned from all MTG events going forward?! LGD posted:realtalk: I do think it's a good rule change, it's annoying to have unintended limitations in more extended/eternal formats, and it's probably at worst a net neutral in proliferation of 'walkers and 'walker-centric gameplay, since you're not incentivized to play them in full multiples as removal/backup in case of removal against opposing walkers Honestly yeah, especially considering that there's now actual spells and abilities that can care about Planeswalkers now.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2023 05:08
|
|
|
OneDeadman posted:The one thing I miss about the old legend rule was using garbage dollar rare planeswalkers to blow up the better versions my opponent controlled. It's probably my biggest rules pet peeve that they changed Planewalkers this way for your own walkers.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2023 05:20
|
|
|
Were legendaries rare back then? I don't hate that element of balance and might make mirror matches really funny sometimes. The old time rule I want back is not dying the instant you hit 0
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2023 06:11
|
|
|
OneDeadman posted:Judge, In my opponent's deckbox there is a deck, that could potentially be illegally marked or perfectly legal. Unless we open the deck box there's no way to know which one it is. I choose to believe that we live in the dimension where my opponent has illegally marked his deck and thus because of such, you should hand me the match win. If they actually banned people for stuff then maybe the sharking wouldn't be as common (and yes, I know it isn't that common, it's still absurd people are not being banned for actual cheating at minimum).
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2023 06:13
|
|
|
Khanstant posted:Were legendaries rare back then? I don't hate that element of balance and might make mirror matches really funny sometimes. Yes they didnt make a bunch of legendaries for each set back then, and walkers weren't legendary, they had their own special rule. https://mtg.fandom.com/wiki/Planeswalker#From_the_%22planeswalker_uniqueness_rule%22_to_the_%22legend_rule%22
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2023 06:21
|
|
|
Khanstant posted:Were legendaries rare back then? I don't hate that element of balance and might make mirror matches really funny sometimes. For reference: In the three sets of Zendikar, Rise of Eldrazi and Worldwake, there were 23 total legendary permanents. Just All Will Become One has 39 legendaries.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2023 06:32
|
|
|
thrun is a stupid card for limited. non interactive garbage i guess it makes sense hes a troll
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2023 07:49
|
|
|
Serf posted:The most I've gotten is "That's how I do it" and "Because it's funny." I've never done it to their decks, because it is annoying I'd ask them to stop because it's annoying as poo poo. If they don't, well, call them the commonwealth word and start doing it to them. I get that's not always an option though. What a bunch of dickheads
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2023 09:59
|
|
|
OneDeadman posted:For reference: In the three sets of Zendikar, Rise of Eldrazi and Worldwake, there were 23 total legendary permanents. Hahaha that's a huge leap, and I have to assume it's commander driven, which I get, except there's already a format where non legendaries can be commander and seems like it's not any more broken than commander can be. WotC want money so making more commander chase cards suits them and they've no incentive to open the gates, but I am curious if there'd suddenly be some commanders who'd be problematic if the legend rule went away. I already know from trying to make an Abzan commander recently that opening it up to all Abzan colour creatures only gives you a few more options, but I imagine the options for dual and mono commanders blows wide open.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2023 10:31
|
|
|
The death of vanilla creatures is likely also part of it - there hasn't been one printed since Strixhaven, and there are likely to be lots of effects you don't want to see multiples of on a single board for easier balance. (New Sheoldred is a fine example. In a commander game the other day I managed to copy someone else's one a handful of times in my Ivy deck and it was unsurprisingly nuts)
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2023 11:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 17:54 |
|
|
Khanstant posted:Hahaha that's a huge leap, and I have to assume it's commander driven… It’s also likely part of power creep. There’s some design space in the area of “creatures where more than one is oppressively powerful, but only one at a time is just very powerful”. So they can make things in that window of power level and just make them legendary.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2023 12:40
|
|
