|
ShallNoiseUpon posted:the next modern horizons set is going to be strictly anti-tron tech WR Instant If an opponent controls two or more permanents that starts with the word "Urza's", slap them in the face Honestly, who can blame him?
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2023 15:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 02:21 |
|
|
ShallNoiseUpon posted:the next modern horizons set is going to be strictly anti-tron tech I'm not even sure what they could print that would hate tron hard enough to make it not a deck come to think of it there's so, so much anti tron tech already. I guess something that just immediately stripped all Urza's lands out of the deck or something. Mega wasteland that lets you destroy a land and remove all copies from the deck
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2023 15:54
|
|
|
Weird Pumpkin posted:Mega wasteland that lets you destroy a land and remove all copies from the deck Sowing Salt?
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2023 16:04
|
|
|
Weird Pumpkin posted:I'm not even sure what they could print that would hate tron hard enough to make it not a deck come to think of it Wasteland would by itself be enough
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2023 16:04
|
|
|
TheKingofSprings posted:Wasteland would by itself be enough honestly yeah, especially since W6 is still legal in modern that's totally true
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2023 16:14
|
|
|
Weird Pumpkin posted:honestly yeah, especially since W6 is still legal in modern that's totally true Does anyone W6/GQ right now? Is it at all effective?
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2023 16:18
|
|
|
Fritzler posted:Yeah, here is board end state: This is just oral mtg player poo poo. Ego’s overruled logic. Like you look at the top cards to see if you had it or not and decide who won the game. Saying “whelp, guess we both lose” is just insane. https://twitter.com/mtghofbot/status/1685672961053757440?s=46&t=6TcDRv5TsjsK9hYJMKVitA Any loremasters?
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2023 16:45
|
|
|
Sickening posted:This is just oral mtg player poo poo. Ego’s overruled logic. Like you look at the top cards to see if you had it or not and decide who won the game. Saying “whelp, guess we both lose” is just insane. They had like 8 judges watching the match and supervising the post-match discussion so that it was Words Only, no negotiating deals, no dice, no topdeck checking, nothing whatsoever.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2023 16:48
|
|
|
If you look at your next draws to see if you would have won or not before agreeing to the outcome of the game then you eat a no-prize DQ instead of a top 16 Pro Tour finish.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2023 16:52
|
|
|
Randalor posted:If anyone plays that goose against me, I'm scooping on the spot. I know how bad geese can get, I don't want to have to deal with an 8-headed one. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2023 17:00
|
|
|
Froghammer posted:Mishra's Vengeance Make it a one-red mana 2/1 that draws a card and creates two treasure tokens for each Urza's permanent and it'll be a modern horizons card.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2023 17:02
|
|
|
Fritzler posted:Yeah, here is board end state: This is probably the most ridiculous boardstate I've ever seen in a 1v1 game
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2023 17:03
|
|
|
  
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2023 17:09
|
|
|
Archenteron posted:They had like 8 judges watching the match and supervising the post-match discussion so that it was Words Only, no negotiating deals, no dice, no topdeck checking, nothing whatsoever. How does that make any sense Line, that was the only way that player could've won, right? So why didn't they play it out? Or topdeck it to see?
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2023 17:12
|
|
|
Sickening posted:This is just oral mtg player poo poo. Ego’s overruled logic. Like you look at the top cards to see if you had it or not and decide who won the game. Saying “whelp, guess we both lose” is just insane. 1. You are not allowed to look at top cards or offer the win in exchange for things. This was on stream so lots of judges watching, especially cuz multiple other top rounds were drawn. A recent regional championship had a similar position in the final round of Swiss, it seems like draw is the usual position unless they are friends, because things can’t be promised and both want obviously. 2. I heard a hammer player got disqualified for palming cards. Idk who but can prob find out more with that. Edit: Johnny Truant posted:How does that make any sense Fritzler fucked around with this message at 17:16 on Jul 30, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2023 17:13
|
|
|
Johnny Truant posted:How does that make any sense Because it was the last round of the PT? They were already past extra turns so they couldn't play it out and topdecking it to see is against the rules.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2023 17:16
|
|
|
Archenteron posted:They had like 8 judges watching the match and supervising the post-match discussion so that it was Words Only, no negotiating deals, no dice, no topdeck checking, nothing whatsoever. Jabor posted:If you look at your next draws to see if you would have won or not before agreeing to the outcome of the game then you eat a no-prize DQ instead of a top 16 Pro Tour finish. Fritzler posted:One the first part: You obviously can't use the wrong combination of words but of course you can 100% choose to concede if you believe its right to do so. Everyone in these situations should at least have an idea that a straight up draw is lose for both. situations like these have happened at every level of competition and both players going "welp we both lose" has to be the minority. The only issue is both players having a small claim to potential victory and an ego that won't let them concede to match to their opponent.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2023 17:17
|
|
|
Sickening posted:You obviously can't use the wrong combination of words but of course you can 100% choose to concede if you believe its right to do so. Everyone in these situations should at least have an idea that a straight up draw is lose for both. situations like these have happened at every level of competition and both players going "welp we both lose" has to be the minority. There is absolutely no combination of words that makes it okay to look at hidden cards in somebody's library to figure out which player "should" concede.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2023 17:19
|
|
|
Jabor posted:There is absolutely no combination of words that makes it okay to look at hidden cards in somebody's library to figure out which player "should" concede. "No fury in the next 5 cards, dang" "I concede the match, good games". And unless they have changed something where you can't concede after the match has ended in turns then its 100% legal.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2023 17:24
|
|
|
insertdumbnamehere posted:and topdecking it to see is against the rules. That's dumb imo, like there was literally only the one way for that player to win, right? so... there you go, you can easily determine the winner. I know it was extra turns etc etc but like, they had a definitive way to determine the winner 
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2023 17:24
|
|
|
Johnny Truant posted:That's dumb imo, like there was literally only the one way for that player to win, right? You can't say those words as they have to skirt gambling laws. You can however functionally do it that way and have for decades. You just can't say the words and both players have to understand how things work.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2023 17:25
|
|
|
Sickening posted:You can't say those words as they have to skirt gambling laws. You can however functionally do it that way and have for decades. You just can't say the words and both players have to understand how things work. I'm definitely out of my depth here cause I have zero clue what you're talking about lol Does this kind of scenario happen often? I would guess not but I'm very ignorant of tournament rules, how they'd played, etc
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2023 17:32
|
|
|
Sickening posted:"No fury in the next 5 cards, dang" "I concede the match, good games". And unless they have changed something where you can't concede after the match has ended in turns then its 100% legal. It's always been against the rules? Unsporting Conduct — Improperly Determining a Winner posted:Two players reveal cards from the top of their libraries to see “who would win” after extra turns (And if you're aware it's against the rules, like if you've got a half-dozen judges watching the match and telling you what you can and can't do, it upgrades to Cheating and gives you a disqualification).
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2023 17:34
|
|
|
You hear about similar situations every few tournaments.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2023 17:34
|
|
|
Rinkles posted:You hear about similar situations every few tournaments. Huh, that's wild
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2023 17:37
|
|
|
The solution, of course, is to simply win in the alloted time.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2023 17:39
|
|
|
Johnny Truant posted:I'm definitely out of my depth here cause I have zero clue what you're talking about lol MTG tournaments can't legally be played if they are seen as gambling. They must be a game of "skill". I am sure there are youtube videos out explaining this. MTG has skirted gambling laws for a looong time for their packs of cards and tournaments. Gambling laws are different everywhere, so its easier to just try and dodge them all. Its a bit of gray. Additionally, they have had to take action on determining the winner of a match outside of the game itself for the same reasons. Can't rock paper scissors, can't roll dice, and you can't bribe your opponent etc. No legal issues anywhere if you just play the game and let things fall where they may. The spirit of the rules , if it were possible to enforce, would mean that players in the situation described would always have to take the draw and move on. Its made more complicated because players can choose to concede. Its led to an environment of unspoken rules, secret handshakes, and under the table deals when situations like this take place. They happen at every competitive event of every level, including the pro tour.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2023 17:42
|
|
|
Johnny Truant posted:That's dumb imo, like there was literally only the one way for that player to win, right? Yeah, but there's no good dividing line between "if I drew this specific card in the next five draws I could have won" and "if this played out the way I think it would have, I would win". If you allow this, then it sets a precedent that allows more people to argue that they definitely would have won, and you may as well not have time limit draws because they'll inevitably devolve into two salty players talking about how the next five cards drawn mean they definitely would have won and they're basically playing the worst form of mental magic in the form of yelling at a judge. This is a Magic tournament. They can't make rules on the basis of "if you push the boundaries of this it's going to suck, so don't be a dickhead", you need to draw a hard line somewhere. (Also, all the gambling laws more informed people are talking about, which is genuinely really interesting. Thanks for the posts.)
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2023 17:43
|
|
|
Lurks With Wolves posted:Yeah, but there's no good dividing line between "if I drew this specific card in the next five draws I could have won" and "if this played out the way I think it would have, I would win". If you allow this, then it sets a precedent that allows more people to argue that they definitely would have won, and you may as well not have time limit draws because they'll inevitably devolve into two salty players talking about how the next five cards drawn mean they definitely would have won and they're basically playing the worst form of mental magic in the form of yelling at a judge. Yeah I feel you, I guess I'm just seeing it as "you're surrounded by judges, both decklists are known, so a consensus on needing that one specific card to win in X turns" should be determinable but yeah I absolutely see the worst version of mental magic side Gambling aspect of it I never really thought about, so seconding your thanks to that stuff being elucidated for me
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2023 17:48
|
|
|
Toshimo posted:The solution, of course, is to simply win in the alloted time. This is correct.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2023 17:49
|
|
|
In that situation I would always concede if they didn't first or quickly. For starters, it makes all of their future victories owed to me, deal or no deal, the universe knows the rest of that tournament, my mercy is the only reason they are there. More importantly, they are only our opponents temporarily, every player is or should be on the same side in the grand scheme against wizards. When players draw Wizards wins and that's the worst possible outcome. Third a draw is worse than a win or lose. With a win you get to feel good, with a loss you get to feel good in the negative ways, with a draw you're just waiting for the sneeze that never comes.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2023 17:51
|
|
|
While it sucks for those two guys, look at the other side of the equation - if you're the person who ended up being number eight, how much would it have sucked to be told you didn't make the cut because some other guys made a shady deal? Neither of those two guys deserved to be in the top 8 because they did not win enough matches per the tournament rules that they knew very well going in.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2023 17:51
|
|
|
Jabor posted:It's always been against the rules? Doesn't this also have the issue that the match goes on until a result is determined, and since there isn't a result yet the match is still going on. You can't just decide to look at the top cards of your deck during a match. Khanstant posted:In that situation I would always concede if they didn't first or quickly. For starters, it makes all of their future victories owed to me, deal or no deal, the universe knows the rest of that tournament, my mercy is the only reason they are there. Did chatgpt write this post ilmucche fucked around with this message at 18:02 on Jul 30, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2023 17:59
|
|
|
ilmucche posted:Doesn't this also have the issue that the match goes on until a result is determined, and since there isn't a result yet the match is still going on. You can't just decide to look at the top cards of your deck during a match. Yeah, that's another thing I was thinking about when I was writing my last post. Looking at the top five cards of your deck and going "gently caress this, I concede" is kind of hosed up in a serious tournament, and for all practical purposes looking at your top cards to resolve a time limit draw is just asking if it's cool to pretend you did that five minutes ago. It's fine for casual play, but it's really weird when money's on the line.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2023 18:19
|
|
|
Hey all, I have some codes from pre-release bundles that I can't use, yours for the taking. Let me know when they've been activated and I will clear out this post: Code 1: Phyrexia All Will Be One – Gone Code 2: Innistrad Crimson Vow – Gone Code 3: The Brothers War – Gone Code 4: The Brothers War – Gone Edit: All gone! Bachtere fucked around with this message at 22:23 on Jul 30, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2023 18:25
|
|
|
Bachtere posted:Hey all, I have some codes from pre-release bundles that I can't use, yours for the taking. Let me know when they've been activated and I will clear out this post: I took Code 2, thanks.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2023 18:34
|
|
|
Fajita Queen posted:While it sucks for those two guys, look at the other side of the equation - if you're the person who ended up being number eight, how much would it have sucked to be told you didn't make the cut because some other guys made a shady deal? Right, this is the flip side to "someone should just concede" -- the game is actually a draw, and it impacts people other than the two playing. Same situation with intentional draws where the draw causes both players to make the cut but a win+loss would cause one to miss.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2023 18:37
|
|
|
I grabbed Code 1, thank you! Cool Post Beg fucked around with this message at 19:19 on Jul 30, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2023 18:39
|
|
|
Bachtere posted:Hey all, I have some codes from pre-release bundles that I can't use, yours for the taking. Let me know when they've been activated and I will clear out this post: Thanks! I took code 4.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2023 18:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 02:21 |
|
|
Reply is not edit!
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2023 18:44
|
|