Determining intent, determining if a player is lying or not, is not that hard if you know what to look for. Body language *never* lies.

Jaap Brouwer

On a whole different note. This is by far the largest T1 event in the last couple of years (if I remember correctly). The T32 decklists define the current meta game imho. Posting these here seems the least the organizers can do for the community (except for organizing that beautifull thingy).

<bitch mode on> and I really hate it that my pre-registration wasn't confirmed<bitch mode off>

Jaap

I just feel the need to jump in on this one. Judges are human. Very human. Hence they make mistakes. Problem with judges making mistakes is that sometimes these mistakes can cause a player to not win money / prices / whatever.

If a player participates in a tournament, you accept the authority of the judge, as Rudy did graciously. Accepting the authority of the judge also includes not bitching about it afterwards on a forum. If you have a problem on a ruling, talk to the (head) judge about it after the round or after the swiss part of the tournament is over. Really.

I wasn't there, so I can't judge the situation. Anything I say hereafter is just my opinion sitting in my laizy chair, and can not be referred to by anyone (yes, unfortunately this disclaimer is necessary).

I talked to Rudy over MSN on this ruling, and assuming neither player made intentional statements, then the ruling of the head judge was okay. The only issue that is worth discussing (imho) is wheter one of the players deliberately made an erroneous statement.

From my experience with judges, I observe that a lot of judges are not investigating cases as thorough as they could, which sometimes can lead to player getting away with stuff they shouldn't have.

Deliberately misrepresenting the game state or an aspect of the game state is cheating, and should be awarded with a DQ without prize (that should teach the bastards).

Jaap (levelfivish)

Sorry dudes, I might be wrong on this one, but as far as I know you can wish for a face down card. The sideboard is face down. Any player is not allowed to look at any face down cards during play, but with the wish, you can look at any RMFG card, including the face down ones. Like I said, I might be missing something here, but the only thing that will make me state otherwise is a backed up ruling.

Jaap

This is down right wrong. This can not be demanded from any player. Any judge that enforces this penalty is most likely 'out-of-date'.

Jaap

Have to love the guys that try this. Yes, a player might get away with it. A player also might run into a DQ for cheating. And if the judge knows that the player knew and the judge reports this to WotC, that player has a large chance of running into a minimum 2 year ban.

Is that worth it?

Keep it simple: play hard and fair in competitive play, play easy and fair in fun play.

Jaap

I said it before, and I'll say it again. Knowing the rules is the foundation of becoming a good judge. Knowing the rules is (by far) not sufficient to become a good certified judge. If you score decent on the Delphi test, you have a decent chance on passing the *written* test. After that there's still the practical part and the interview.

Jaap
(level somethingish)

If you would give me this kind of bullshit, I'd hand you a stern lecture and an unsporting conduct severe, downgraded to a match loss.

Players trying to trick their opponent into this kind of rules bullshit don't even deserve the chair they're sitting on. Unfortunately there's still a small group of players that considers this kind of behavior as "smart".

Well, trust me. I'd love to run into those players and see where "smart" gets them.

Jaap

I'm not 100% sure of what you mean, but from what I understand, you're 100% wrong. Triggers happen all the time, even if players have no priority, like during the resolution of a Death Cloud, Nevy's Disk activation or a Jokulhaups. Triggers will only go on the stack as soon as a player receives priority. Players normally only get priority _AFTER_ resolving a spell or ability on the stack, _NEVER_ during the resolution of a spell or ability. The active player also receives priority when a step or phase is entered.

Just my 5 cts
Jaap

<edit: clarification>

For all the folks that state "I would be a fine judge", think again. Judging is not about rules knowledge. It starts with it, like driving starts with knowing how to turn the steering wheel, but knowing the rules is not even close to mastering being a good judge.

Everyone that is interested in actual judging should try a tournament. You'll be amazed how little rules questions you'll get and how many other things you have to do. That, and the chicks ofcourse

Jaap
<edit: typos>

Sure, but you sound like George W Bush now. Please explain me what you think the weapons of MD are?


I'm judging now for 8 years. I have heard all sorts of bullshit. This is another addition. Judges nor TO's ever get banned for disallowing cards. They were probably banned for a whole bunch of screw ups, one of them might have been disallowing foreign or altered cards.


Seriously, George W is still hiring people for his campaign...

Jaap

...



I would allow any card, as long as the player is very clear about what it is supposed to mean, and as along as I can rely on that it is an actual copy of that card. So messing up a card and then say: "I promise I'll tell my opponents that it's a Lotus whenever necessary", doesn't work unless it's a real Lotus  

The DCI would only "have a word" with one of it's judges if a judge screws up something very serious. Disallowing a marked card is not a serious offense. DQ a player for an obvious wrong reason is.

Jaap Brouwer

From the 2003-2004 Universal Tournament Rules:



So a card that has been modified by anyone, for artistic reasons, while still recognizable, cannot be disallowed in a tournament, unless the head judges decides differently.

As long as the card is recognizable as a force of will, or I (as the judge) was informed by the player that his Forces were modified and the player asked permission to me at the beginning of the tournament, and promissed me that he informes his opponent every time about the title and function of the card (if necessary) whenever appropriate (Duress, play etc...), I would be very fine with it.

It's a game. And it's also about pimping your deck. Some players pimp by playing all foils or beta's, some pimp by playing with signed, foreign or whatever cards. Have fun. As long as the title and the function of the card is clear  between all players / judges when needed.

Needless to say ofcourse if a player would abuse his modified / misprint cards (Serra / Time Elemental, anyone?), that I would have no hesitation DQ'n this player on the spot, asking for a ban of minimal 6 months to the DCI.

Jaap Brouwer
(edit: typos, de-Whoopie my language)

You will not find lands or abilities that explicitly say that they put lands into play untapped. That's the normal course of action.

If a land or an ability states that a land should be put into play tapped, you do that.

Jaap

Whoa!  :shock:  :shock:

(I am seriously impressed) That's a time walk.

Jaap

if there are any triggered abilities waiting, they will go on the stack as soon as one of the players gets priority. Only after these abilities have gone on the stack the player that received priority can cast spells and play activated abilities etc.

So no, there is no window between receiving priority and the triggered ability going on the stack.

Jaap

Sure, just make sure you bring a family pack of sleeves. Realy. You might need them.

Especially in the mornings, in the shower.

Okay, I think I misread the beginning of the thread. So we agree on the resources. If new resources will be added to play, then you can never ever call it a loop, unless the player playing the loop will be the one that controls all the added resources.

In the case described the 'loosing' player does not have access to extra or changing resources over time. So this line of reasoning is not a reason not to call it a loop.

Now on to the next motivation why this cannot be defined as a loop (you guys really make me think, my gratitude for that )
Over the course of a couple of turns, too many parameters in the environment of that game change: like life totals, library sizes (of the loop-controller), cards in hand etc.
It is not the responsibility of the defending player to prove that he can break the lock, but the responsibility of the 'winning' (or should it be whining?) player to prove that he will win without doubt. As soon as there is a chance for the 'winning' player that he can make a mistake (forgetting to leave the right mana open so he can counterspell or something like that) that player should play it out. Even the suggestion that a card might exist that can break the lock is enough to have the 'winning' player forced to play it out. Even if the chances of the 'loosing' player having and playing that cards is merely theoretical.

I already stated that it is not the responsibility of a player to show that his opponent can't win and that he won't loose (as the Angel exactly states) but simply to win the game. Up untill that moment, there is no winner.

So I will still stick to my ruling that this is not a loop and therefore let the 'winning' player not win but let him play it out.

Unless some other interesting material is added to this discussion, I will refrain from making any more comments. This mostly is a theoretical discussion that except for nitpicking does not contribute to a broader understanding of the comprehensive rules within this community.

Jaap

Reason for this is that within a stack, step or phase, normally there is no change in available resources. All players can see and determine their options. As soon as the available resources change, the game state might be changed and basically the outcome is non-predictable.

With resources I mean: cards in hand, cards in graveyard, availability of mana, permanents in play and everything else that might influence what happens next.

I don't understand why you (Jebus) have difficulties seeing this line of reasoning and thus not understanding that the rules covering loops cannot be applied in situation where the so-called 'loop' is spanning more than one turn. It's all about the availability of resources and thus what can happen within a 'loop'

Jaap

Hi,

I would like to add that Crystal Keep is not the official source of the rules. It's just a collection of rules over the years. Although mostly correct, WotC doesn't maintain these rules and rulings and errors could occur.

I would initially refer to the comprehensive rules of the game at all time.

www.wizards.com/magic/comprules

Jaap

Hi. I was asked to give my opinion on this.

Jebus is like (almost) always right, but in this case I have to claim the opposit of what Jebus claims. My personal definition of a loop includes "a single stack, or sequence of stacks without a step or phase transition. *Note* this is part of my personal definition and does not represent DCI policy.

This personal definition is effectively backed up by jurisprudence:
http://oracle.wizards.com/scripts/wa.exe?A2=ind0210D&L=dcijudge-l&D=0&m=14319&P=2281

In this message, RuneH (NetRep DCIJUDGE-L) states that if one player is totally deprived from resources (in any way) then the judge may declare the win. As long as the player on the loosing end still has access to new resources (mana, turns, cards etc) the player does not loose and the players should play it out.

It is not the responsibility of any player to *not loose* but to *win*. If you can't realy win within time, it's your problem and you won't win according to the rules.



On the subject of if an unfinished game must be recorded as a draw:

http://www.wizards.com/protour/images/HighlevelRules.pdf, see section "Using result entry slips".


My cents.
Jaap
(also certified judge)

A large problem with ancient L1 and L2 judges is that they never had to retest. Ever. So if one become a L2 like 7 years ago, and since then you haven't been very active, but you keep on renewing you'll be fine.

And then there is a large risk that you turn very very very bad.

Fortunately the situation described is not very common, but it does happen.

Jaap

Uhm, no offense, but it's a card game! The cards are ment to play. I can understand that you want to have a mint set of every expansion set ever released and such, but 100 copies of Bazaar? What's the point? If you want to collect in such stupid number, go collect beach sand.

On another note (more on-topic) I think 10 proxies is fine. It allows people to proxie the most expensive stuff and still makes them to chase some of the cards. It's still a collectible cards game. Yes, overpriced cards should be easier available but like Zherbus said: don't proxy sol rings and stuff. That is indeed sickening.

My $0.02

In addition to my previous 'explanation':

Another quote:

404.3: A triggered ability may read "When/Whenever/At ... , if [condition], [effect]." The ability checks for the stated condition to be true when the trigger event occurs. If it is, the ability triggers. On resolution, the ability rechecks the condition. If the condition isn't true at either of those times, the ability does nothing. This rule is referred to as the "intervening "if' clause" rule. Note that the word "if" has only its normal English meaning anywhere else in the text of a card; this rule only applies to an "if" that immediately follows a trigger condition. (Rules Version Date: February 1, 2004.)

See the oracle text of Animate Dead in my previous post.

This implies that if you have an animated creature on the board, and you start the loop with animating your dragon, then there is no way that you can have the AD triggers stack in such a way that when the loop stops, you can resolve the remaining AD triggers and steal whatever creature card in whatever graveyard. Reason for this is that the AD has to be in play (the if condition needs to be true) for it to resolve properly, else the ability does nothing.

Example:

I control an animated Ambassador Laquatus (AL) and I play another Animate Dead (AD). It resolves:, AD CIP goes on the stack and I target my Worldgorger Dragon (WGD).

It resolves and the WGD comes into play. It's CIP "everything else leaves" triggers (CIP) and as soon as you get priority it will go on the stack.

It resolves and everything except the WGD leaves play. Two AD Leave Play triggers trigger (LP1 with WGD and LP2 with AL). As soon as you get priority you choose the order of LP1 and LP2.

No I'll describe two scenario's. The first scenario is when you stack LP1 on top of LP2, effectively destroying the WGD before the AL would be destroyed if it would still be in play. The second scenario is when you stack LP2 on top of LP1, effectively destroying the AL (if it would still be in play which is not the case) and then destroying the WGD.

As the AL is not in play anymore and the LP2 will fail to do anything, it doesn't matter what scenario you choose.

The result will always be that the dragon will die and its leave play ability will trigger (WGD LP).

Everything above is just foreplay. No business starts:

Everything you removed with the WGD CIP ability comes back, including 2 AD's and a AL. When they come into play, the AD CIP will trigger (AD CIP1 and AD CIP2) and the AL will just enter play, unaware that he has been animated before and perfectly happy with himself.

It doesn't realy matter how the AD CIPx abilities are stacked. What does matter is what targets are choosen. If for the top AD CIP ability the WGD is choosen, the whole circus starts again and you will not be able to use the still waiting AD CIP ability as the 'IF' clause of the AD will prevent it from doing anything.

Assuming that you use the second AD CIP ability to target the WGD and continue the loop at least once again.
 If the first AD CIP ability targets a creature card in your own graveyard, you'll end up having that creature in play when the loop stops. If you target a creature card in your opponents graveyard he will end up having that creature card in play.

Reason for this is that when the WGD comes into play it explicitly returns the removed card to play under it's owners control (because the card says so) and not to the controller of the effect that made them come into play (as the rules describe).

--

This has gotten much longer then I though was necessary, but I hope this is clear enough. Don't hesitate to PM me if you think I'm missing something (I'm human too )

Jaap

Hi,

I was asked to try and shed some light on who controls what with dragon and animate flying around.

First some quotes:

103.1. Whenever a card’s text directly contradicts these rules, the card takes precedence. The card overrides only the rule that applies to that specific situation. The only exception is that the rules in section 100, “General,” and section 101, “Starting the Game,” can’t be overridden by the cards. Those rules apply at all times, regardless of what the cards say.

200.6a A nontoken permanent’s owner is the same as the owner of the card that represents it. A permanent’s controller is the player who put it into play.

Animate Dead

Enchantment
When Animate Dead comes into play, if it's in play, it becomes an enchant creature. Put target creature card from a graveyard into play under your control enchanted by Animate Dead.
Enchanted creature gets -1/-0.
When Animate Dead leaves play, destroy enchanted creature. It can't be regenerated.

Worldgorger Dragon
{R}{R}
Creature -- Nightmare Dragon
7/7
Flying, trample
When Worldgorger Dragon comes into play, remove all other permanents you control from the game.
When Worldgorger Dragon leaves play, return the removed cards to play under their owners' control.

Normally, without the "return the removed cards to play under their owners' control", you could animate with the help of your Worldgorger Dragon (WD) and your Animate Dead (AD) your opponents graveyard empty, resulting in all of his creatures under your control. This would be because of 200.6a, BUT...

...BUT since the WD states "return the removed cards to play under their owners' control" and as such, you can animate your opp creatures as much as you want, but every single creatures that comes into play because of the WD leaves play triggered ability will come into play under its owners' control. This is because of the Golden Rule that cards preceed over rules.

I assume this is the question. If I missed something or the question was differently, let me know.

Jaap

Although JSexton displays some fair research and reasoning, if I would have to rule over such question, for the purpose of resolving an Alabaster Wish, I would declare the whole sideboard white. Based on the similar 'own' word.

Jaap

Except for the typo, Toad is correct.

Jaap

Jebus reply is realy good. Make sure that you ask if you're not sure.

But what if you don't want to give him any ideas? Well, that's your problem. Both players are *always* responsible for having a clear, unquestioned and correct state of the game.

I'll write this down a bit stronger once more:
If you think the state is shaky and you want to try and take advantage from it, you're actually cheating, as you're trying to abuse purposly an unclear / erroneous state. Under the rules of the game, if you see something erroneous you are *obliged* to call over a judge so he/she can fix it. If you are unclear about a situation, ask. If you don't, you cannot make *any* claims and whatever happened is your own fault.


About the described situation, if I would have been on the spot, and I would have seen the behaviour exactly as you described, I would have ruled that priority had passed. Players staring at each other is a 'normal' way of indicating that priority has passed. If I would be the judge, I would have asked the passing player: "did you stare at your opponent?".

Independent of the answer, I'm able to make the player realize what he did and make sure that he will never try to abuse the 'staring-down-tactic' again if this is what he did.

Jaap

Apparently I didn't explain clearly as a lot of members feel the need to spill their 2 cents. I appologize for that.