The actual effect of Restricting Chalice

[Khahan]

Well, it's not garbage.  The missed trigger rules have gone through TONS of changes, and when you think about all of the different interests involved, the current iteration is pretty good.  Judgecast has some episodes where they go over these changes throughout 2014, and it's pretty informative.

Yes and I disagree with this change.  It makes what was previously a "failure to maintain game state" on both players into a legal play.  These warnings were applied to both players for these exact scenarios laid out, jerks trying to scum newer players.  They clearly think that this is still important as no such rule change has made static abilities or replacement effects all of a sudden optional.  It makes absolutely no sense to only change it for triggers, which are now completely the responsibility of the owner of the card.

Wire is actually in a fairly unique situation where your opponent has priority for the time when the trigger is supposed to be active, and the action is completely on your opponent to do something.  The card is now also doing something different than is actually written on it.  If they really wanted to implement  this change fully they should've at least changed the text on the 20th anniversary version to correspond the wall of text that it now is:

"Fading 4 (This artifact enters the battlefield with four fade counters on it. At the beginning of your upkeep, remove a fade counter from it. If you can't, sacrifice it.)

At the beginning of your upkeep, tap an untapped artifact, creature, or land you control for each fade counter on Tangle Wire.

At the beginning of your opponents' upkeep, you may have that player tap an untapped artifact, creature, or land he or she controls for each fade counter on Tangle Wire."

I'm in complete agreement with Vaughnbros on this.  With the original rules change years back that allowed mandatory triggers to be missed they should have simply issued errata that said, "All mandatory triggers are now 'may' triggers and never have made another mandatory trigger card again.

[gkraigher]

I'm pretty sure Nedleeds' Tangle Wire interaction happened because his opponent didn't understand that:

1) All the trigger's the active player control go on the stack
2) Then all of your opponents' triggers go on the stack

So your opponents triggers resolve first.

Once Nedleeds resolved the removal of his fading counter, his opponent missed the tangle wire trigger.  He demonstratively said each trigger, and each time his opponent failed to say a word...he could have even spoken out of turn, before allowing anything to resolve, and he would not have missed the trigger.

At the beginning of your opponents' upkeep, you may have that player tap an untapped artifact, creature, or land he or she controls for each fade counter on Tangle Wire."

They never make cards more verbose than they need to be.  

"All mandatory triggers are now 'may' triggers and never have made another mandatory trigger card again.

No, when a player skips their own trigger, from something like trying to skip Dark Confidant's ability because they don't want to die (and worse knowing the top card of their library), it is cheating.  

Or better yet, I'll just skip my own tangle wire each upkeep.  

It's cheating when it's your missed trigger, unless it doesn't benefit you in which case it's forgetfulness.  Sorry, welcome to competative magic.

[vaughnbros]

It's cheating when it's your missed trigger, unless it doesn't benefit you in which case it's forgetfulness.  Sorry, welcome to competative magic.

This is not about legality, its about morality.  For a magic related example, I could legally trade a little kid a few $1 rares for his $70 Jace, Vryn's Prodigy, but that doesn't make it moral.  At what point did we stop caring about our fellow person and start becoming so damn selfish?

[gkraigher]

There are rules to tournament magic, there are no rules in trading.  That's the moral difference.  

After a match, win or lose, I like talking to my opponenets.  If my opponent is new to the game, I talk to them about critical points in the match and often times give them hints as to what matters.  If they are doing something, bad I will tell about it after the match.  Not because I want them to feel bad, but because the game is a constant learning process.  You can learn a lot from failures, and often times, more than you can learn from winning.  And the game is hard.  I don't have a Grand Prix Top 8 or even a Pro Tour appearance on my resume, but I'm not going to get there with bad habits either.

I see your point about morality, about using the rules to your advantage and taking advantage of players who aren't familiar with them.  But ethically, letting them develope bad habits and keeping ignorance to the game is arguably worse than losing a match. 

[Chubby Rain]

There are rules to tournament magic, there are no rules in trading.  That's the moral difference.  

Legality is not morality.

I see your point about morality, about using the rules to your advantage and taking advantage of players who aren't familiar with them.  But ethically, letting them develope bad habits and keeping ignorance to the game is arguably worse than losing a match.   

Contrary to popular belief, people are capable of learning through means that don't involve them getting screwed by other players.

I had a shop mirror in champs this year. My opponent and I both had wire. I went to my turn. I said, 'Untap'. Paused. Untapped my stuff. I said while pointing at my Wire (which had 1 counter remaining), "Resolve fade?". My opponent nodded. "Resolve tap?". My opponent nodded. Then I said "Draw?" and my opponent said I had to tap to his Tangle Wire. I explained that by allowing me to resolve my Tangle Wire he'd missed his trigger. He laughed, I called a judge. He did not lie to the judge. The judge ruled in my favor. He protested a bit, but to no avail. If you want to have this ruling go in your favor and 'get' people who don't understand Magic I think this is the proper way to go about it. Not silently messing about with your stuff. Same thing with Dark Confidant vs. opposing Wire. Say, 'Untap', pause. Point at your Confidant. 'Resolve confidant?'. If they approve then they just aren't concentrating on the game, or don't know the rules, either way at competitive REL they should be punished for either lapse. Half of paper magic at competitive REL is focusing, concentrating, and understanding Magic. We'd all play MTGO if we wanted to snooze through triggers on auto pilot.

Is this the skill Shops players say their deck requires? Knowing the rules and being conscious?

I let a player take back a Brainstorm they accidentally cast into a Notion Thief (at least, I felt it was accidental - I gave him the benefit of the doubt). It was in the 6-1 bracket at Champs two years ago and it knocked me out of Top 8 contention (my opponent ended up in 9th).  People play the game for different reasons and as a result, different things are important to them. I had a great time that weekend.

[rikter]

So to compare ned's tangle wire situation with the one atoglord described with disenchant:

In ned's spot, my preference would be to tap down for the other wire.  I believe that it is both players responsibility to maintain the game state. I get that the proper order on those wire triggers dictates that once you hit a certain point the other guys are gone...but is that really what you want the competitive experience to be about? Especially since the wire isnt a may, and even if you resolve them out of order there is no material effect on the board state.

I think if you realize that what you are about to do is ignore a mandatory trigger because your opponent didn't verbally acknowledge it, that you have an obligation to clarify the game state and his intentions. This only applies to missed mandatory triggers, if you botch the stack in other ways that's just how it goes.

For atog lord, under no circumstances are we doing taksie backsies at competitive REL. Cards laid are cards played. I've made all sorts of aweful plays: not looking closely at draft cards and blocking wrong, targeting the wrong creature with a spell because I wasn't paying attention and pointed at the wrong guy, etc. For all my talk about the triggers above, your voluntary stuff is a whole different story. You need to know what you're doing, and if you don't or you botch something, it needs to stand. I'm not going to spoon feed you the proper sequence.

But indicating some basic information about mandatory triggers to ensure that they are observed is not spoon feeding. In ned's example I'm not going to help the guy order the triggers, but I am going to stop proceeding with my turn, acknowledge his triggers and wait for him to order them before I go further. I have an obligation to his tangle wire, plain and simple.

[Khahan]

At the beginning of your opponents' upkeep, you may have that player tap an untapped artifact, creature, or land he or she controls for each fade counter on Tangle Wire."

They never make cards more verbose than they need to be.  

"All mandatory triggers are now 'may' triggers and never have made another mandatory trigger card again.

No, when a player skips their own trigger, from something like trying to skip Dark Confidant's ability because they don't want to die (and worse knowing the top card of their library), it is cheating.  

Or better yet, I'll just skip my own tangle wire each upkeep.  

It's cheating when it's your missed trigger, unless it doesn't benefit you in which case it's forgetfulness.  Sorry, welcome to competative magic.

I think you misunderstood my point. My point was that when they made the change they basically gave people an out to mandatory triggers.  They aren't truly mandatory anymore.  There are multiple ways around them as we've had people in this very thread demonstrate.  Their ruling (back in 2008 or so was the original one that gave people an out for mandatory triggers) was ill-conceived then and its ill-conceived now.  It opens the door for winning thru trickery and foul play rather than winning by out playing your opponent. And no, I don't consider pointing to your tangle wire and asking if it resolves all the while knowing you are misdirecting your opponents attention from his own triggers and permanents to trick him into goofing to be out playing  your opponent. I consider unethical and unsportsmanlike behavior.

With the rules the way they are now just start making all triggers optional and be done with it. If Wizards isn't willing to do that, then  undo this silliness that mandatory actions can be ignored and enforce them properly.

[gkraigher]

Khahan,

There is a card in the game called Stifle.  Whether or not it's commonly played in Vintage isn't a relevant discussion.  Why you would target a tangle wire tap effect that negatively effects your opponent is also irrelevant.  

The Tangle Wire trigger decision is the exact same thing as the Arcbound Ravager/Phyrexian Revoker and the Disenchant situation because it gives information that your opponent is not willing to Stifle the trigger.  

I understand how stupid that argument sounds on the surface, but that doesn't make it wrong.  Because of interations like these, the Judges came together and made universal rules that may on the surface appear to be unfair or abusable, but in reality, if you both players know the rules then none of them are abusable.  The rules are available online, anyone who wants to take the time can read them.  I recommend to everyone who plays tournamnet Magic that they do.  

In my opinion, it's unethical not to play by the rules.  In the case with Tangle Wire, Nedleeds demonstratively stacked his triggers, his opponent did not.  It wasn't trickery.  

http://magic.wizards.com/en/gameinfo/gameplay/formats/comprehensiverules

[diophan]

In a competitive REL I don't see why I'm required to play both my deck and my opponent's deck, which is how the rules used to work.

During EE3 I was playing against shops and there was a tangle wire in play. At the start of my turn I somewhat jokingly asked my opponent "any effects during my upkeep?". My opponent told me no. I ended up being the nice guy and tapping down anyway and telling my opponent he needs to be mindful of this because his other opponents aren't going to go easy on him.

While I think nedleeds's situation is borderline acceptable from a moral level (it depends on whether the opponent messed up because he doesn't understand how the stack works or because he was intentionally tricked), I think the previous rules were absurd. I shouldn't be required to counter my own spells with chalice, dutifully tap down to tangle wire (although personally I always tap because I feel scummy otherwise), give you monk tokens, or point out that the undiscovered paradise that you happened to play brings back your bloodghasts to deal lethal to me. That's your job. If you're going to play a trigger heavy deck like shops or dredge at a competitive REL I don't think it's unreasonable to have to acknowledge your triggers.

[Khahan]

Khahan,

There is a card in the game called Stifle.  Whether or not it's commonly played in Vintage isn't a relevant discussion.  Why you would target a tangle wire tap effect that negatively effects your opponent is also irrelevant.  

The Tangle Wire trigger decision is the exact same thing as the Arcbound Ravager/Phyrexian Revoker and the Disenchant situation because it gives information that your opponent is not willing to Stifle the trigger.  

I understand how stupid that argument sounds on the surface, but that doesn't make it wrong.  Because of interations like these, the Judges came together and made universal rules that may on the surface appear to be unfair or abusable, but in reality, if you both players know the rules then none of them are abusable.  The rules are available online, anyone who wants to take the time can read them.  I recommend to everyone who plays tournamnet Magic that they do.  

In my opinion, it's unethical not to play by the rules.  In the case with Tangle Wire, Nedleeds demonstratively stacked his triggers, his opponent did not.  It wasn't trickery.  

http://magic.wizards.com/en/gameinfo/gameplay/formats/comprehensiverules

Yet here in this very thread we have people basically bragging about their attempts to exploit this rule and people in support of that exploit happening and championing it. Sorry, its all wrong. And absolutely none of that or anything you said changes what I said.  There is no such thing as a mandatory trigger now because of game play rules. Any player can get around them and  have the rules to prop themselves upon.   In the past if you jedi mind tricked your opponent into forgetting his mandatory triggers - oops, lets rewind and they get applied. Now if you do that you get rewarded for intentionally ignoring the game state!  Absolutely no argument you can make will change my mind that this is not the way it should be and that the changes made to allow this to happen were for the worse.

No arguments then and no arguments now will change my mind that it is absurd to have a rule that lets you ignore the rules.

I don't think it's unreasonable to have to acknowledge your triggers.

Nor do I. My beef with the current rules is what it allows - it allows mandatory actions to not be mandatory.  In Nedleeds example under the old rules the game would have backed up and all triggers would have been met. His opponent clearly acknowledged his triggers.  Yes, technically he should have said, "Wait, before that can resolve my triggers go first."  But he didn't either because he wasn't familiar with the rules or he had his attention pulled away and focused on something else by his opponents actions.


I am curious if the people who are supporting the way it is now are largely people who started playing after the rules change happened. I can understand if they've never known any other set of rules how this seems fine. Its just the way its always been for them.

[nedleeds]

The current policy makes communication paramount. Clear communication discourages cheating. It also means no more 'double technicals' which were dumb. Pay attention, especially to your own triggers (since those are the misses that can get you a GRV). There is no ethical ambiguity, play by the rules and communicate clearly.

If a GRV occurs don't be afraid to call a judge, Mr. Nice Guy missing his own wire trigger, or bob trigger isn't always Mr. Nice Guy, sometimes he's an actual cheater. If all his opponents had just calmly called a judge the other times he'd cast jace with 3U, or paid for Spell Pierce with Workshop mana, or ignored Trinisphere when Gushing maybe he would have been dissuaded from cheating. I've called a judge on my self 3 times over the past 3 vintage champs. Twice for missing my mana crypt roll, once for underpaying for a spell. It happens.

It's competitive REL and we all paid $40-100 to duke it out by the rules, concentration is a part of long competitive Magic events. There's a boatload of things to focus on in

Is this the skill Shops players say their deck requires? Knowing the rules and being conscious?

I don't know. I'm not a shop player. I'm a vintage player, I've played workshop decks before. No harder than staring at Oath, saying derp and flopping a 7/7 lifelink Yawgmoth's Bargain on the battlefield. But your constant jabs at the vintage players who play workshops is pretty stale. Honestly, you've got more insight and experience and know better.

[bactgudz]

The current policy makes communication paramount.

This is the key.  In the example provided nedleeds' opponent performed a clear action in a clear reference frame, passing priority acknowledging the fade was about to resolve, after his trigger would have had an observable impact on the game.  This is exactly what the MTR defines as a missed trigger, the fact that the trigger's controller performed an action after it was too late.  The sword cuts both ways...if he had just ticked down his die, not asked "resolve fade", failed to get a clear action from his opponent and tried to argue a missed trigger he himself could end up in hot water with a judge.

If you are very clear with your communication then there is no "pulling one over on someone".  It's amazing to me how there is some ethical dichotomy even between triggers...people never seem to let a dredge player get away with a Bridge trigger when they name too quickly for Cabal Therapy or someone being slightly out of order with a young pyromancer or heck when I played affinity I learned real quick to not naturally tick up my ravager die right away when saccing something equipped with skullclamp,  yet not tapping under opposing Tangle Wire after "roll for mana crypt" is acknowledged and life totals are changed is rarely seen.

Yes these rules are different than they were several years ago, but if there is one constant in magic it is that the game is always changing; and deep knowledge of the game is rewarding.  I may be loath to no mana burn or the new mulligan rule or prowess but I can't refuse to play by them.

[Chubby Rain]

Is this the skill Shops players say their deck requires? Knowing the rules and being conscious?

I don't know. I'm not a shop player. I'm a vintage player, I've played workshop decks before. No harder than staring at Oath, saying derp and flopping a 7/7 lifelink Yawgmoth's Bargain on the battlefield. But your constant jabs at the vintage players who play workshops is pretty stale. Honestly, you've got more insight and experience and know better.

Constant jabs? Can you please provide evidence of a prior 'jab' I have made on this forum? I was referencing the post you made below complaining about the lack of "skill" with cards like Misstep and Flusterstorm. It seemed hypocritical as both players are clearly "focusing, concentrating, and understanding Magic", so that's pretty much half the skill of paper Magic right there...

Isn't this interesting and skill testing? Who has the most free countermagic and a Flusterstorm for lastsies. Makes my control and concurrency college work look like tic tac toe.

In the example you gave with the dueling Tangle Wires, the opponent knows how the game state is supposed to look following both players resolving their Wire triggers. What he doesn't know is the Nonactive Player - Active Player rule for resolving such triggers. Congrats, you got him but in my opinion this is hardly demonstrative of significant skill - it's an angle I personally would not have pursued despite it being legal.

Thank you for your positive remarks regarding my level of insight and experience...

[Khahan]

Here's another way to explain my issue with it.  We'll keep using the tangle wire example.

So ned's turn starts. The stack looks like this, top to bottom resolution:

opponents tap to wire
ned's fade counter
ned's tap to wire

Ned asks if his fade counter can resolve.  By doing so we're both implying that we are passing priority.  To get to his fade counter we must resolve the opponent's  tangle ability because its the top on the stack.  Just because nobody said, "I am putting my tangle wire on the stack above yours." doesn't mean it doesn't happen. The game rules tells us it happens in the section on the upkeep.  So its there. There is no getting around it. So the top ability MUST resolve.  Its not a 'may' action.  Everybody here is talking about 'playing by the rules.'   Well, here are a few rules for you to consider:

503. Upkeep Step
503.1. First, any abilities that trigger at the beginning of the upkeep step and any abilities that triggered during the turn’s untap step go on the stack. (See rule 603, “Handling Triggered Abilities.”)

603.2. Whenever a game event or game state matches a triggered ability’s trigger event, that ability automatically triggers. The ability doesn’t do anything at this point.

603.2b When a phase or step begins, all abilities that trigger “at the beginning of” that phase or step trigger.

603.5. Some triggered abilities’ effects are optional (they contain “may,” as in “At the beginning of your upkeep, you may draw a card”). These abilities go on the stack when they trigger, regardless of whether their controller intends to exercise the ability’s option or not. The choice is made when the ability resolves. Likewise, triggered abilities that have an effect “unless” something is true or a player chooses to do something will go on the stack normally; the “unless” part of the ability is dealt with when the ability resolves.

So in Ned's example he asks if his fade counter ability resolves and his opponent says yes.  To me, this means both have passed priority on the opponents tap ability so it has resolved. It must be dealt with. The rules I cited above makes that clear.  So what is wrong with the judge saying, "Since you both passed priority tap out to the tangle wire. You've passed so you can't respond to it."  This precludes the possibility of gaining additional information that you can use to decide if you do or don't want to stifle the ability.

I understand it does NOT work this way. I understand it works a way I don't agree with.   But considering the possible options  the DCI had I still scratch my head trying to figure out why they came up with a method that lets people bypass game rules, even if by accident.

For the record and to show I'm being fair about this,  here is the rule from triggered abilities that allows this event to happen and the judge to legally rule that its missed and you don't have to tap:

603.3. Once an ability has triggered, its controller puts it on the stack as an object that’s not a card the next time a player would receive priority. See rule 116, “Timing and Priority.” The ability becomes the topmost object on the stack. It has the text of the ability that created it, and no other characteristics. It remains on the stack until it’s countered, it resolves, a rule causes it to be removed from the stack, or an effect moves it elsewhere.

I highlighted 2 parts. The first is the rule number to show this comes from the same section of rules that most of what else I quoted comes from. The second is the part that states "its controller puts it (the ability) on the stack."  Notice this is in direct conflict with rules section 503 about the upkeep step which indicates the ability is put on the stack by virtue of it existing (in my own words).

I'm not arguing anybody is technically wrong and breaking the rules for doing this. I'm just showing the actual conflict in the rules and stating my opinion that I felt the old way was better.

[Varal]

While you play a match is not the time to think about rules philosophy, you should play how the rules are and not how you'd like them to be. Your opponent will not remind you of your triggers and you should not remind them either. I've had the nedleeds situation happens with a Delver trigger in my first Vintage match two years ago, my opponent was unhappy about his mistake but he understood that it's how the rules are played. I was pretty stressed by the missed triggers and didn't like it but I just followed the rules no matter my opinion on them. The APNAP rules might not be known by all players but it is expected to be known in a Competitive tournament especially in Vintage where it happens all the time. It's not a trick, it's just about asking to progress the game state and giving an opportunity to the opponent to put the trigger on the stack. It's no different than asking "Draw?" with a Tangle Wire on the stack.

I should mention that this is for Competitive tournaments and not Regular ones. In a regular one, players have until the end of the turn to remember a mandatory trigger. Some people are afraid of judges but there's no reason to, they're there to help us and very rarely give Game Losses.

You can play however you want at home but in a tournament play by the rules. Comprehensive Rules are all you need to play at home and what I follow in my casual games. However, in a tournament there is also the Magic Tournament Rules, the Infraction Procedure Guide and the Judging at Regular documents.

[brianpk80]

I don't think being a Weekend-Magic rules lawyer has any demonstrative correlation to high level (or even local level) tournament success.

Another important point is that if you enjoy the deck design aspect of Vintage and influencing the format on that vector, your results lose probative value if they are predicated on stealing wins from losing board states by trick pop-quizzing your opponent on subsection (f)(5.1)(A)(1) of Chapter 855 of Article 7, revised 2015, 2013, 2008, 2003 of the Uber Magic Super Serious Magic Statute Compendium at 9 PM after 12 hours of play.  You can't in good conscience recommend your designs to other persons if they're not actually capable of winning optimally played games of Magic.  

Finally, I have to wonder if adopting an antisocial technocratic approach to Vintage Magic leads to more fatigue/exhaustion than it's worth.  I can't see myself sitting through 12 matches of these unpleasantries after a 3 hour commute and still having a healthy state of mind.  I certainly wouldn't want to repeat the experience.  Seems like better "EV" to just buy a foil fetchland and play Cockatrice or Xbox that day.  

[bactgudz]

Khahan, the comp rules are not the only rules of magic when you are in a tournament, you must abide by the Magic Tournament Rules and Infraction Procedure guide which are very explicit about this situation.  Additionally, the MTR is the bible, not the comp rules:
"Information in this document may contradict (or have information not contained in) the Magic: The Gathering Comprehensive Rules. In such cases, this document takes precedence. "

http://wiki.magicjudges.org/en/w/Magic_Tournament_Rules
http://wiki.magicjudges.org/en/w/Infraction_Procedure_Guide#2.1._Game_Play_Error_.E2.80.94_Missed_Trigger

[Chubby Rain]

While you play a match is not the time to think about rules philosophy, you should play how the rules are and not how you'd like them to be. Your opponent will not remind you of your triggers and you should not remind them either. I've had the nedleeds situation happens with a Delver trigger in my first Vintage match two years ago, my opponent was unhappy about his mistake but he understood that it's how the rules are played. I was pretty stressed by the missed triggers and didn't like it but I just followed the rules no matter my opinion on them.

You can play however you want at home but in a tournament play by the rules. Comprehensive Rules are all you need to play at home and what I follow in my casual games. However, in a tournament there is also the Magic Tournament Rules, the Infraction Procedure Guide and the Judging at Regular documents.

This is contrary to why I play Magic - I am here for fun and I enjoy the game more when my opponent is not unhappy or stressed by the missed triggers. In most cases, I will do what Diophan did and point out to my opponent how it is supposed to work in Competitive REL while not exploiting my opponent's ignorance of a 210 page document.

[Khahan]

Khahan, the comp rules are not the only rules of magic when you are in a tournament, you must abide by the Magic Tournament Rules and Infraction Procedure guide which are very explicit about this situation.  Additionally, the MTR is the bible, not the comp rules:
"Information in this document may contradict (or have information not contained in) the Magic: The Gathering Comprehensive Rules. In such cases, this document takes precedence. "

http://wiki.magicjudges.org/en/w/Magic_Tournament_Rules
http://wiki.magicjudges.org/en/w/Infraction_Procedure_Guide#2.1._Game_Play_Error_.E2.80.94_Missed_Trigger

And nothing you said and nothing in the rules you listed contradicts a single point I've made. 

4.4 Triggered Abilities

Players are expected to remember their own triggered abilities; intentionally ignoring one is Cheating. Players are not required to point out the existence of triggered abilities that they do not control, though they may do so within a turn if they wish.

Triggered abilities are considered to be forgotten by their controller once they have taken an action past the point where the triggered ability would have an observable impact on the game. Triggered abilities that are forgotten are not considered to have gone onto the stack. How forgotten triggered abilities are subsequently handled is defined by the Rules Enforcement Level of the event.


Completely supports the statement I made that I understand how to play the game and how things.  It does not, however, change the fact that I think its a  horrible rule. It does not change the fact that the existence of that rule allows players to ignore other rules (specifically in this case mandatory triggers).  And it does not change my opinion that people who use this rule intentionally trying to trick their opponents into mistakes to gain an advantage are unsportsmanlike in their behavior.

Anyway, unless something new is said, I think I'm done. I feel like I'm having a completely different conversation than some of you. The points you guys are raising to argue with me *I agree with.* I'm not arguing them.  But they don't change my opinion of the way things are (which is right now they are stupid), nor does telling me, "the rules say they are this way."  Because I know the rules say they are that way. I think the rules should change so they aren't that way.

[MaximumCDawg]

I don't think being a Weekend-Magic rules lawyer has any demonstrative correlation to high level (or even local level) tournament success.

Another important point is that if you enjoy the deck design aspect of Vintage and influencing the format on that vector, your results lose probative value if they are predicated on stealing wins from losing board states by trick pop-quizzing your opponent on subsection (f)(5.1)(A)(1) of Chapter 855 of Article 7, revised 2015, 2013, 2008, 2003 of the Uber Magic Super Serious Magic Statute Compendium at 9 PM after 12 hours of play.  You can't in good conscience recommend your designs to other persons if they're not actually capable of winning optimally played games of Magic.  

Finally, I have to wonder if adopting an antisocial technocratic approach to Vintage Magic leads to more fatigue/exhaustion than it's worth.  I can't see myself sitting through 12 matches of these unpleasantries after a 3 hour commute and still having a healthy state of mind.  I certainly wouldn't want to repeat the experience.  Seems like better "EV" to just buy a foil fetchland and play Cockatrice or Xbox that day.  

I tend to play in a way you'd appreciate, but that doesn't mean it's wrong to insist on stricter compliance with the rules.  Atog Lord's example about the wires was less about "rules lawyer-ing" and more about asking the opponent if they actually understood how their deck worked.  I dunno, it seems fair to me.  This IS a  technical game.  You didn't see me complaining when I missed a Dark Confidant trigger in the Vintage Online Super Special Friends League and we had to stop and look up how bad the result was for me.  It certainly sets a different tone, sure, but it's totally fine if they wanna play all serious-like.

[bactgudz]

Khahan, the comp rules are not the only rules of magic when you are in a tournament, you must abide by the Magic Tournament Rules and Infraction Procedure guide which are very explicit about this situation.  Additionally, the MTR is the bible, not the comp rules:
"Information in this document may contradict (or have information not contained in) the Magic: The Gathering Comprehensive Rules. In such cases, this document takes precedence. "

http://wiki.magicjudges.org/en/w/Magic_Tournament_Rules
http://wiki.magicjudges.org/en/w/Infraction_Procedure_Guide#2.1._Game_Play_Error_.E2.80.94_Missed_Trigger

And nothing you said and nothing in the rules you listed contradicts a single point I've made.  

4.4 Triggered Abilities

Players are expected to remember their own triggered abilities; intentionally ignoring one is Cheating. Players are not required to point out the existence of triggered abilities that they do not control, though they may do so within a turn if they wish.

Triggered abilities are considered to be forgotten by their controller once they have taken an action past the point where the triggered ability would have an observable impact on the game. Triggered abilities that are forgotten are not considered to have gone onto the stack. How forgotten triggered abilities are subsequently handled is defined by the Rules Enforcement Level of the event.


Completely supports the statement I made that I understand how to play the game and how things.  It does not, however, change the fact that I think its a  horrible rule. It does not change the fact that the existence of that rule allows players to ignore other rules (specifically in this case mandatory triggers).  And it does not change my opinion that people who use this rule intentionally trying to trick their opponents into mistakes to gain an advantage are unsportsmanlike in their behavior.

Anyway, unless something new is said, I think I'm done. I feel like I'm having a completely different conversation than some of you. The points you guys are raising to argue with me *I agree with.* I'm not arguing them.  But they don't change my opinion of the way things are (which is right now they are stupid), nor does telling me, "the rules say they are this way."  Because I know the rules say they are that way. I think the rules should change so they aren't that way.

You seem to be missing the point.  The MTR clearly states that it supersedes the comp rules so it does go against your statement of there being any actual rules conflict. There is in fact no rules conflict here.  The rules are very clear.  Just like "you can't" clauses supersede "you can" the MTR supersedes the comp rules.  In a tournament setting at the proper REL, "mandatory" triggers are not always mandatory in the strict sense.  You can go on acting all high and mighty about what you want to consider the rules, but I find your criticisms as silly as chiding blocking with a ground guy if opponent casts Jump facing an Archetype of Imagination on the table.  It's one thing to say you don't like the rules, but to call others unsporting for playing by the rules is a class of its own.

And to directly address your trigger issue: there is no conflict between "automatically triggering" and "controller putting a trigger on the stack" these are 2 separate things, the former needs to have happened to be able to do the latter, and the latter is exactly what must be consciously done to avoid devolving into improper game states through resolving missed triggers after they would have had observable impacts on the game.  You are giving very good evidence for why the missed trigger rules are what they are, because we need people to do 603.3 on time so we don't devolve.  Fire up mtgo when you have 2 things that trigger at the same time and you will get the idea of how it works. In nedleeds' example, all the wire stuff for both players would trigger automatically at exactly the same time, when/the order they are put on the stack and consequently when they resolve are different.  Abilities trigger given conditions and then their controllers have the opportunity to put them on the stack in APNAP order before the next person would receive priority.  Hence the very first phrase in 603.3: Once an ability has triggered...then it is the controller's responsibility to carry out the rest of that phrase.

[Khahan]

<quote>You seem to be missing the point.  The MTR clearly states that it supersedes the comp rules so it does go against your statement of there being any actual rules conflict. There is in fact no rules conflict here.  The rules are very clear.  Just like "you can't" clauses supersede "you can" the MTR supersedes the comp rules</I>

Yes, its very clear we are having 2 different conversations. If you think this is the focus of my posts and the cause of my concern then you are clearly missing the point I am making and there is no need to continue.

[CHA1N5]

Wow, you all are right: restricting Chalice has had a dramatic effect on Vintage!

[MaximumCDawg]

Tee hee.

No, seriously though, this discussion is relevant.  If we're in a place where people strictly adhere to the rules of Vintage and enforce them, then Chalice is the worst feel-bad of any of the shop pieces, right?  You forget about chalice, you just countered your own spell.  It's not an illegal action or missed trigger or anything -- it's just the Dumb Tax.

So that suggests no Chalice = we can be more strict with each other.

[jyuj]

Now that Chalices restriction has finally sunk in, I can start to heal.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ChUr2pNKMxI&list=PLF10F656768889511&index=2