The actual effect of Restricting Chalice

[nedleeds]

Shops aren't going away. They're just not going to be the clear best deck anymore.

Just curious, when were Shops the clear best deck?  Most tournament results don't support that statement.  I agree that Shop decks will not vanish, but I honestly predict Chalice will get unrestricted.....eventually.  It will probably take a few restriction cycles though.

We can probably agree that the two sources of information that WotC used to make this decision were champs, and then maybe MTGO results. We have a great deal of data from champs thanks to Eternal Central

http://www.eternalcentral.com/vintagechamps2015coverage/

You can take a few different approaches to defining 'best deck'.

One might be simply % of the field: Shops were 100/462 or 21.6%

However you can't call that absolute because of a number of factors, especially in sanctioned. You have card availability, and cost on top of power you need shops and the cost of 4 x Shops > Recall / Walk. At least the Friday at EW it was, with Shops being ~$900-1,000. You also have personal preference or in some cases stubbornness. Many people enjoy / love / can't imagine playing without the powerful blue cards we have access to in Vintage. I'm sure we've all had conversations with somebody playing, storm let's say and they openly admit being a dog to shops but have an undying love for their deck. We can probably discount the budget decks as a whole since those are folks who came out to play and didn't have a choice between shops or a deck with restricted blue cards.

We had 56 budget decks. So if we pare our field down a little and say, of those who had power this % played Workshops we arrive at a slightly higher number because there is no budget shop deck. 24.6%

Then we have conversion rate. Which is the rate at which a percentage of the field converts to some more elite portion of the event. Top 32, 16 and 8 are good sign posts. Granted people drop, but we can never really account for laziness, hunger, etc.

11 of the top 32 contained 4 x Shops. 34.4%. So they converted at a higher rate than their representation. 2 of those workshop pilots had byes (Mastriano, Demars) so take that into account.

7 of the top 16 contained 4 x Shops. 43.8%. I think this might be the number that WotC looked at. The top 16 are basically in contention going into the last 2 rounds, one card, die roll, etc. could have swung them into or out of the top 8.

Then there is the eye test, the not so subtle complaining about shops on the coverage, the 'feeling' of losing a blowout on the draw vs. shops (dying with a bunch of moxen you can't place onto the battlefield in your hand), etc..

You can perform the same exercise with 'Force of Will' decks but that's a more tactically diverse bucket than Workshops (which has diversity in tactics ... but I think most sane people would agree the tactical diversity is greater in the FoW bucket).

"Force of Will" was 56.3% of the field (including some budgets).
"Force of Will" converted (17/32) 53.1% into the top 32.

The numbers are what they are, then throw in the 'feeling' of a shop blowout. DTT had to go in the hostage exchange despite being outpaced by Dack Fayden and several other cards. As far as chalice being the correct choice I think it made some sense, I mean we clearly aren't restricting on power level here since Workshop ... Golem might have diversified decks that continue to play 4 x Workshop but might have been a bigger blow to the decks power level others have debated this to death.

[Varal]

That is appalling! 
People race through steps all the time in casual around me but once pointed out we can always back up (even though new information has been gained) but if this is the judges ruling then it creates incentive for people to just cheat and pretend it was an accident.  This is exactly the kind of thing I was worried about when the latest rules change surrounding missed triggers was announced.  It doesn't make any sense.  Missing a mandatory trigger should be considered a game rule violation and the game should be backed up(within reason). 

I can't say exactly which judges got involved, I'm pretty sure the end result was that nothing got tapped though.

So I think part of the issue here regarding missed triggers is that Roland controlled the Wire and so it is his responsibility to declare it, not the opponent. In my experience with Vintage, people don't race through steps like that to try and grime someone on missed triggers, so you don't need to be super aggressive about announcing it. Hell, even when people do mess things up, I believe the Vintage set is much more likely to try and resolve the state without getting the judge involved...I usually only see judge calls in Vintage in situations where people can't figure it out on their own, or the game state has degenerated to the point where the judge is required. Thats what makes Roland's story all the more shocking.

I had something happen to me at a Legacy event earlier this year as well. I was up against a Star City pro who I'm not going to name, and earlier in the match I picked up a GRV. Fast forward a bit, and I have Trinisphere in play. The guy taps one mana, casts a ponder, and starts resolving it quickly. I look and see that he has only tapped 1, but I didn't want to call the judge because I was worried I was going to get Failure to maintain game state... even though I felt like he raced through so fast it wasn't my fault, it was going to be my word vs. his as to what had actually happened and I was concerned about picking up another violation. Later in the match, he did the same thing AGAIN. And again, I did not call the judge because I was worried about getting hit for FMGS. I didn't want to even point it out to him, because instead of just tapping the lands, he might have called the judge on himself, which would again result in FMGS for me.

To prove this was no fluke, after the match was over I went outside to smoke and I saw him out there and walked towards him. He saw me, and the first words out of his mouth were, "I cheated". I was really careful about what I said to him, because I feel like failing to report GRV's to avoid picking up a FMGS of your own is something that would not go over well. The whole incident just left a bad taste in my mouth.

@aaron patten

I feel like two non scumbag Vintage players (i.e. 99% of us) in this same situation would resolve it by just tapping the permanents without attempting to reconcile the card that had been seen, and trusting the guy who drew the card to be ethical about what he tapped down.

You shouldn't care about Failure to Maintain Game State warnings. They're not upgradeable unlike other warnings. Of course if you're doing it on purpose you can get a Cheating Disqualification.

[rikter]

That is appalling! 
People race through steps all the time in casual around me but once pointed out we can always back up (even though new information has been gained) but if this is the judges ruling then it creates incentive for people to just cheat and pretend it was an accident.  This is exactly the kind of thing I was worried about when the latest rules change surrounding missed triggers was announced.  It doesn't make any sense.  Missing a mandatory trigger should be considered a game rule violation and the game should be backed up(within reason). 

I can't say exactly which judges got involved, I'm pretty sure the end result was that nothing got tapped though.

So I think part of the issue here regarding missed triggers is that Roland controlled the Wire and so it is his responsibility to declare it, not the opponent. In my experience with Vintage, people don't race through steps like that to try and grime someone on missed triggers, so you don't need to be super aggressive about announcing it. Hell, even when people do mess things up, I believe the Vintage set is much more likely to try and resolve the state without getting the judge involved...I usually only see judge calls in Vintage in situations where people can't figure it out on their own, or the game state has degenerated to the point where the judge is required. Thats what makes Roland's story all the more shocking.

I had something happen to me at a Legacy event earlier this year as well. I was up against a Star City pro who I'm not going to name, and earlier in the match I picked up a GRV. Fast forward a bit, and I have Trinisphere in play. The guy taps one mana, casts a ponder, and starts resolving it quickly. I look and see that he has only tapped 1, but I didn't want to call the judge because I was worried I was going to get Failure to maintain game state... even though I felt like he raced through so fast it wasn't my fault, it was going to be my word vs. his as to what had actually happened and I was concerned about picking up another violation. Later in the match, he did the same thing AGAIN. And again, I did not call the judge because I was worried about getting hit for FMGS. I didn't want to even point it out to him, because instead of just tapping the lands, he might have called the judge on himself, which would again result in FMGS for me.

To prove this was no fluke, after the match was over I went outside to smoke and I saw him out there and walked towards him. He saw me, and the first words out of his mouth were, "I cheated". I was really careful about what I said to him, because I feel like failing to report GRV's to avoid picking up a FMGS of your own is something that would not go over well. The whole incident just left a bad taste in my mouth.

@aaron patten

I feel like two non scumbag Vintage players (i.e. 99% of us) in this same situation would resolve it by just tapping the permanents without attempting to reconcile the card that had been seen, and trusting the guy who drew the card to be ethical about what he tapped down.

You shouldn't care about Failure to Maintain Game State warnings. They're not upgradeable unlike other warnings. Of course if you're doing it on purpose you can get a Cheating Disqualification.

At the time, and I guess currently as well, I wasn't sure on the consequences of picking up the warnings so I chose to just avoid it since the game was basically locked up, I was just waiting to draw a wincon. Good to know though.

[gkraigher]

Always call a judge.  He didn't pay the mana for a spell, that is not failure to maintain game state, it's not a possible game state to begin with.  Examples of failure to maintain game state are things like not changing life totals, leaving creatures on the battlefield after suffering lethal damage, or untapping permanents that cannot be untapped.  

You deserved to be cheated because of your ignorance to the rules and your cowardice in not calling for a judge.  It's because of inaction by people like you that cheaters succeed at tournaments.  In this case, not only did the guy knowingly cheat, he bragged about it, showing his willingness to continue the practice as well as his disdain for fairplay.  I don't want people like this playing Magic at all, and until they get banned, they will keep doing this to unsuspecting players. 

If something is wrong, call a judge.  

From what is going on with this forum, it sounds like Roland did not appeal to the higher ranking judge and got screwed because of it.  On top of not being afraid to call a judge at the site of anything wrong, if you feel like the judge ruled against you with unsound logic, appeal the judge's ruling.  Often times they are low ranking judges who don't know all the rules.  I've had two appeals won even though I thought the first judge's explanation was okay, I just didn't like it, appealed and got it correctly reversed to my favor.  

You risk nothing, and your upside is high.  The judges are there for a reason, use them, because not only jeopardizing the integrity of your match, you're jeopardizing the integrity of the entire tournament.  You're tie breakers and your opponents tie breakers matter, even if you are out of contention.  

[rikter]

Always call a judge.  He didn't pay the mana for a spell, that is not failure to maintain game state, it's not a possible game state to begin with.  Examples of failure to maintain game state are things like not changing life totals, leaving creatures on the battlefield after suffering lethal damage, or untapping permanents that cannot be untapped.  

You deserved to be cheated because of your ignorance to the rules and your cowardice in not calling for a judge.  It's because of inaction by people like you that cheaters succeed at tournaments.  In this case, not only did the guy knowingly cheat, he bragged about it, showing his willingness to continue the practice as well as his disdain for fairplay.  I don't want people like this playing Magic at all, and until they get banned, they will keep doing this to unsuspecting players. 

If something is wrong, call a judge.  

From what is going on with this forum, it sounds like Roland did not appeal to the higher ranking judge and got screwed because of it.  On top of not being afraid to call a judge at the site of anything wrong, if you feel like the judge ruled against you with unsound logic, appeal the judge's ruling.  Often times they are low ranking judges who don't know all the rules.  I've had two appeals won even though I thought the first judge's explanation was okay, I just didn't like it, appealed and got it correctly reversed to my favor.  

You risk nothing, and your upside is high.  The judges are there for a reason, use them, because not only jeopardizing the integrity of your match, you're jeopardizing the integrity of the entire tournament.  You're tie breakers and your opponents tie breakers matter, even if you are out of contention.  

Don't assume Roland didn't appeal to the head judge. I don't know if he did or not. I would actually assume he did; when relaying the story I wanted to stick with what I knew happened to avoid putting out had information.

I'm not going to say I deserved to be cheated, I'm not about victim blaming, though I will agree that my decision to not call the judge was rooted in cowardice and ignorance.

[diophan]

The version of the Roland story I heard was that the table judge sided with Roland, his opponent appealed, and the head judge overruled the table judge.

[gkraigher]

Riktet, I appreciate the honest assessment and humility.  I think I came off really aggressive.  I have a very passionate opinion on fair play.  Now you know, and hopefully others who didn't know now realize the importance and the resolution.  

Trinisphere is also a different effect than say chalice of the void.  In order for a spell to be cast, all costs need to be paid.  It is not a game state violation, it's an illegal action.  If your opponent pondered quickly into a chalice of the void, and you don't stop him, it's a missed trigger.  If they do it and you hadn't yet said anything, call the judge immediately.  Ask your opponent to put down both his hand and his ponder cards, explain to him that you never said it resolved, then explain the situation to the judge.  They will probably give him a violation, counter his spell, and force him to shuffle his library unless their is knowledge of cards on top or bottom of the library.  You will not be assessed any penalty.  Of course if you say "okay", then you missed your trigger.  

[MaximumCDawg]

Riktet, I appreciate the honest assessment and humility.  I think I came off really aggressive.  I have a very passionate opinion on fair play.  Now you know, and hopefully others who didn't know now realize the importance and the resolution.  

Trinisphere is also a different effect than say chalice of the void.  In order for a spell to be cast, all costs need to be paid.  It is not a game state violation, it's an illegal action.  If your opponent pondered quickly into a chalice of the void, and you don't stop him, it's a missed trigger.  If they do it and you hadn't yet said anything, call the judge immediately.  Ask your opponent to put down both his hand and his ponder cards, explain to him that you never said it resolved, then explain the situation to the judge.  They will probably give him a violation, counter his spell, and force him to shuffle his library unless their is knowledge of cards on top or bottom of the library.  You will not be assessed any penalty.  Of course if you say "okay", then you missed your trigger.  

Truth.  While most Vintage matches I've ever played were with people who were pretty easygoing about rules violations, you still always call them out.  Gently, but quickly.  You don't want to allow evil to flourish in the community, do ya? 

[Chubby Rain]

[snip]

A really good post. I think this is the data that the DCI looked at in making their decision (along with the subjective element).

[tribet]

As I understand it, Roland had Tangle Wire out and his opponent raced through his upkeep to his draw step and did not tap down permanents to the Wire. When Roland pointed out that the guy needed to tap to Wire, the guy told him that he had missed the trigger and would not be tapping anything. A judge got involved and somehow sided with the scumbag. I don't know how it played out from there.

And because of this exact ruling, I witnessed first hand a UR Delver player doing the eact same against a MUD player last month at sanctioned Sydney GP Vintage.

It was in the additional turns and this was the only way the UR Delver guy could pull out a win with his flying Delver. I was watching at the exact moment and althought, I can't recall exactly how he did it, I think it was a smooth & swift: "Untap - Upkeep - Draw" annoucement sort of thing. The opp said "yes" probably merely aknowledging that it was indeed the right order of chaining MTG phases. And, the UR Delver guy drew is card promptly.

This time, the judge was called and he asked to rewind & to tap the permanents under Wire. I thought it was very cheeky, it was very clear that the UR Delver guy was aware of Rolland Chang very recent precedent case.

[p3temangus]

As I understand it, Roland had Tangle Wire out and his opponent raced through his upkeep to his draw step and did not tap down permanents to the Wire. When Roland pointed out that the guy needed to tap to Wire, the guy told him that he had missed the trigger and would not be tapping anything. A judge got involved and somehow sided with the scumbag. I don't know how it played out from there.

And because of this exact ruling, I witnessed first hand a UR Delver player doing the eact same against a MUD player last month at sanctioned Sydney GP Vintage.

It was in the additional turns and this was the only way the UR Delver guy could pull out a win with his flying Delver. I was watching at the exact moment and althought, I can't recall exactly how he did it, I think it was a smooth & swift: "Untap - Upkeep - Draw" annoucement sort of thing. The opp said "yes" probably merely aknowledging that it was indeed the right order of chaining MTG phases. And, the UR Delver guy drew is card promptly.

This time, the judge was called and he asked to rewind & to tap the permanents under Wire. I thought it was very cheeky, it was very clear that the UR Delver guy was aware of Rolland Chang very recent precedent case.

Lets assume the player you mention was aware of the ruling given out in Roland's Match, this raises an interesting question that may or may not have been addressed elsewhere.  let me preface this by saying that I am neither an attorney nor someone who would pretend to understand the law more than any other average joe so all you lawyer folk out there please excuse any potential mis-use of the lingo  here...

Magic is a game of rules and regulations, the intent of which are to be as absolute as possible yet we are so often forced into case by case rulings of "tough" calls.  Is there any precedence in sanctioned MTG for "case law" where a previous ruling is used to make a decision later on? I am not arguing that this should be the way things are handeled, just saying that a judge at the highest profile Vintage tournament made a "controversial" ruling that has become well known and discussed (at least in this forum...).  Could the player  in Tribet's example above have been like "pump the break there, judge...this situation was already ruled upon in August blah blah blah" and appealed that way?  Most would qualify that as abhorrent sportsmanship and rules Lawyering, but still, is this something that Judges take into account?

[youhavenogame]

Heh, I didn't mean to turn this thread into a discussion about cheating, but thanks to Brian and the Tangle Wire incident crowd for the insightful responses.

[desolutionist]

This past weekend has revealed to me a couple of things:

#1. Oath is good. Tier 1, no doubt.  I'm not sure I have the best list but it's made a case for itself despite some obvious disadvantages (such as drawing Oath targets, multiple Oaths, and giving your opponent 20 Spirit tokens). Of the three Dailys that fired, I believe it 4-0ed two of them and 3-1ed the other.

#2. TPS is back. More evidence of the dominant Ritual combo decks both in Paper and Online.  Like Oath, the various forms of Storm combo have their weaknesses.  Unless you're willing to play a transformational Oath board, Lodestone Golem decks should win 80% of the time.

#3. Painter is good.  Too good.  I don't know if it had any decent finishes this weekend, but it's a challenging deck to play against. It has a lot of great draw, blue
control, and a cheap combo. It's the most efficient Big Blue deck we have so far.  Oath could potentionally one-up Painter by maindecking Gaea's Blessings.

#4. Dredge is weak to my sideboard. Ever since I adjusted my sideboard to 4 Ravenous Trap, 3 Surgical Extraction, they just have no way of interacting with me. All their anti-anti-measures are in the form of spot removal.  This anti-Dredge strategy works in any deck.

#5. Hate-bears has a role in this metagame. Mentor/Delver are somewhat on the decline and in their place are big blue decks that are light on creature removal and weak to anti-Meta cards like Spirt of the Labyrinth, Aegis of the Gods, and Null Rod.  I expect this deck to be good but I don't see more than 1-2 people playing it, mainly because people like to do more explosive things.

I'd say the actual effect of restricting Chalice is this:

1. Weakened Shops. Ability to fight Shops with one drops

2. Resurgence of Dark Ritual

3. Resurgence of 1 and 0 costed artifacts. Enhanced by Thirst for Knowledge.

4. Has made room for other decks to shine; some players who used to play Delver/Mentor/Shops are now playing different decks.  There is more diversity within the metagame.

[MaximumCDawg]

I'm torn.  On the one hand, I love hate bear.dec and the improvement of Storm and lower sideboard space for Shops all do terrible things for aggro decks.  On the other, I really love Painter and Oath and now those decks are good again.  Hrm...

[desolutionist]

I don't know if there is much room in sideboards for against aggro. I've got a Toxic Deluge and that's it. I always try to get a couple of Abrupt Decays in the maindeck of Oath, but Storm can't really do that and still has to devote a bunch of space for the Workshop matchup.  I wouldn't expect more than one or two cards from any particular matchup.  You still need 7 for dredge and 6-7 for Shops depending on your deck.

[madmanmike25]

I'd say the actual effect of restricting Chalice is this:

1. Weakened Shops.

Nailed it.  One thing for sure is that it's nice to see blue decks getting more diversity, it's about time they made a comeback. 

Appy polly logies for this side comment, but you have to be on point with your Tanglewire triggers.  I remember a game where the opponent QUICKLY said "tap then sack?" during their upkeep trying to sacrifice a tapped permanent to Smokestack.  No, it's clearly not the same as cheating, I'm just stressing that you need to keep your head in the game and don't get lazy with your triggers.

[nedleeds]

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.

[gkraigher]

nedleeds,

I'd call that perfect communication.  Great way to beat a person who hasn't taken the time to read the rules of magic.  You deserve that for putting in the time and effort. 

Nothing about that is scummy at all, in fact it was demonstratively the opposite. 

[rikter]

What Ned did is not scummy in any way, but in my experience most of my vintage opponents seemed like the type of guys that would treat that as out of order sequence and tap for the wire anyways.

[xouman]

I'm one of those players that would say "tap now to my tangle", after you resolved your own tangle. I'm plain bad with triggers and rules, I know, but I won't be happy. In fact I often spend time helping opponents with rules (not with judgements by any means), I'm not really competitive but of course I try to win.

[Chubby Rain]

What Ned did is not scummy in any way, but in my experience most of my vintage opponents seemed like the type of guys that would treat that as out of order sequence and tap for the wire anyways.

It really depends on context for me - generally, the opponent would make it clear how serious they are going to play the match and I would hold them to the same standards. If they want to play everything by the book, that's fine (I wouldn't be mad at all) but I would then expect them not to get sloppy with their triggers or try "takebacksies". Trying to hold me to one standard of play and themselves to a lesser standard is pretty scummy and egocentric in my opinion.

[vaughnbros]

I don't really know what any of the 20 or so posts on Tangle Wire and potential cheating has to do with the meta game post restriction of chalice... But since this is where we are at I will try to tie it back...

I think a lot of people seem to forget that this is a game, and you are actually supposed to have fun playing it.  I think the people that are scumming people on tangle wire triggers and are only playing the "best" deck are completely missing the point of the game in the first place.  That is to have fun.  The Vintage community is a great one compared to the rest of magic because these stories of scumming are so few and far between, and most deck choices are not being made because of it being the clear "best" deck. 

These same scumming people use the "I must win for the expected value (EV)!" argument, but the financial EV of a magic tournament for myself (and many other professionals) is actually pretty much always negative.  I guaranteed can make hundreds of dollars doing work that is also advancing my career with a day's worth of work, and that is with 0 financial investment in terms of cards.  So the EV is not even close for a magic tournament compared to other things.

There is also a another, less easily quantified measure, called enjoyment and there is an EV for that as well.  This is what you should be maximizing while you are playing a game.  A majority of Vintage players seem to understand this maximization of enjoyment EV rather than financial EV and it is the reason that we see the decks that we do in Vintage.  If you believe you will gain the most enjoyment from scumming and cheating people into giving you wins, I'd beg you to try to a different approach, and if that isn't satisfying I'd beg you to not play in a Vintage tournament. 

The Vintage meta game is largely shaped by this fact that we are not there just to win.  We are there to have fun, and playing with something on the line is just an extra incentive to bring a little more competitiveness.  Is shops still viable? Yes, just like everything else that someone is willing to put the time and love into constructing a list.

[MaximumCDawg]

Well... it depends on the context, right?  I mean, back when they still did weekly Vintage (OH those were the days... Carl, we hardly knew ye) any time something like this Wire nonsense came up, the players would just back up and fix it.  No one was trying to win based on superior knowledge of the rules.  I've seen people (me and my opponents) cast spells through Trinisphere and Spheres regularly, then have to back up and fix the problem.  Typically people just don't sweat it.

But, if you're in a competitive tournament, it's totally different.  Nedleeds' description was perfectly acceptable and basically amounted to testing whether the opposing player knew how to play their deck.  Just like making someone finish a combo if they have the pieces but might not actually know what to do with them.  Might seem a bit out of decorum for a low-level match with packs on the line, but very appropriate in a larger and more competitive circumstance.

On all of this, Chalice is actually the most feel-bad because if you forget about Chalice you don't go "oops" and back up; you are perfectly entitled to cast something into a chalice; it just then has the effect of countering it.  That's what we'd do.  "Oops.  Looks like I just countered my bolt.  Whoops."  Seen from that perspective, maybe Chalice that's another reason Chalice is the most banworthy of the shop pieces after all!

[The Atog Lord]

There is also a another, less easily quantified measure, called enjoyment and there is an EV for that as well.  This is what you should be maximizing while you are playing a game.

Yes, I strongly agree with this. Optimizing enjoyment is the goal.

On the other hand, that can lead to not letting opponents take things back. This was at Vintage Champs, I believe round 8. My opponent went into the tank with about ten minutes left in the match, in game three. He thought for a minute or two, and then declared that he was Disenchanting one card, saying the target's name aloud. I immediately said OK and started moving it to my graveyard. Then, my opponent said that he had meant to target another artifact I controlled, and had mis-spoke. I didn't allow him to take this back. We got judges involved, and ultimately, the judges ruled in my favor. My opponent had tried to appeal, even changing his story across the judges, but the judges held firm that he could not take his play back.

My opponent was quite upset at me. He felt that I should have let him roll back and disenchant a different card. And there was a time in my Magic-playing career that I likely would have let him. However, whenever I let someone take something back and went on to lose, I felt pretty crummy. And here, I reflected that if I let him take his play back and lost to it, I would feel really bad. Especially because he had spent over a minute tanking about his play with very little time left in the round. Besides, who knows what information my reaction to his play had given him?

And so, I don't think maximizing enjoyment is just about letting opponents play sloppy. If letting a sloppy opponent get away with something would make you feel bad, then don't do it. I'm not saying to play like a scumbag or anything of the sort. I'm saying that one needn't brook sloppy play, or be bullied into letting the opponent do as he pleases.

[Khahan]

Well... it depends on the context, right?  I mean, back when they still did weekly Vintage (OH those were the days... Carl, we hardly knew ye) any time something like this Wire nonsense came up, the players would just back up and fix it.  No one was trying to win based on superior knowledge of the rules.  I've seen people (me and my opponents) cast spells through Trinisphere and Spheres regularly, then have to back up and fix the problem.  Typically people just don't sweat it.

Honestly I remember a time (as I'm sure many long time TMD'ers do) when if a mandatory trigger was missed - you backed up the game and did it.  Its how the rules were.   There simply was none of this gaming the system for an advantage.  If a mandatory trigger was missed - it got fixed. You couldn't ask your opponent if it was ok to resolve your triggers and bypass his by not mentioning them. You couldn't rush thru a phase without giving your opponent a chance and claim since you drew that upkeep is over and the trigger was missed.  This only worked for 'may' triggers.

[vaughnbros]

There is also a another, less easily quantified measure, called enjoyment and there is an EV for that as well.  This is what you should be maximizing while you are playing a game.

Yes, I strongly agree with this. Optimizing enjoyment is the goal.

On the other hand, that can lead to not letting opponents take things back. This was at Vintage Champs, I believe round 8. My opponent went into the tank with about ten minutes left in the match, in game three. He thought for a minute or two, and then declared that he was Disenchanting one card, saying the target's name aloud. I immediately said OK and started moving it to my graveyard. Then, my opponent said that he had meant to target another artifact I controlled, and had mis-spoke. I didn't allow him to take this back. We got judges involved, and ultimately, the judges ruled in my favor. My opponent had tried to appeal, even changing his story across the judges, but the judges held firm that he could not take his play back.

My opponent was quite upset at me. He felt that I should have let him roll back and disenchant a different card. And there was a time in my Magic-playing career that I likely would have let him. However, whenever I let someone take something back and went on to lose, I felt pretty crummy. And here, I reflected that if I let him take his play back and lost to it, I would feel really bad. Especially because he had spent over a minute tanking about his play with very little time left in the round. Besides, who knows what information my reaction to his play had given him?

And so, I don't think maximizing enjoyment is just about letting opponents play sloppy. If letting a sloppy opponent get away with something would make you feel bad, then don't do it. I'm not saying to play like a scumbag or anything of the sort. I'm saying that one needn't brook sloppy play, or be bullied into letting the opponent do as he pleases.

There is a tremendous difference between not wanting sloppy play and deliberately trying to make your opponent misplay.  The former is perfectly acceptable and I actually prefer my opponent to take the stance as it gives the games a more competitive feel.  The latter is just well... scummy.  This trying to force your opponent into missing the triggered ability of a card that does not say may on it is not right.  I know there are people on this forum that take this approach, and even commend it, but I just want to make it clear that I personally do not.  

In the case you've highlighted your opponent gained additional information of knowing that their disenchant would resolve.  In this case, due to information being revealed to the decision maker, their decision can then change and they get an advantage by being able to change this play.

In the case of the now infamous Tangle Wire, the decision maker is actually the person whose turn it is.  By skipping this trigger and going straight to the draw you've already gained additional information and thus have an advantage as to know what to tap down.  This extra advantage alone seems like a penalty to your opponent who missed a NON MAY trigger.  Its not optional.  Its a fact.  There is no oh I would've made you tap down if I knew you were going to do such and such.  No I am obligated by the rules of the game to make you tap down.  The whole rule change by Wizards handling of these types of triggers is quite frankly garbage.  They are allowing scumbags to take advantage of good players, and then now we have people afraid to even call judges because of it.  This atmosphere is a large reason that I avoid legacy tournaments at all costs, and sadly at Champs we get a bleed over of many of their players from their Champs the day before.

[MaximumCDawg]

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.

Personally, I'll keep allowing people to fix the game state as long as I don't get the impression that they're trying to get an advantage out of it (seeing the top card before choosing to tick up Vial, for example).  I just enjoy the relaxed atmosphere more.  But, then again, I have never played in anything more competitive than the StarCity Legacy Open, so.

[gkraigher]

I just played in a RPTQ this past weekend in Toronto.  It was an 8x Planeswalker Multiplier, the same as a GP.  I was trying to qualify for the Pro-Tour, and the only thing I regard as highly as a Pro-Tour bid is one of the Eternal Weekend Original Artworks.  

My opponent had Arcbound Ravager in play, I cast Phyrexian Revoker.  He paused, looked at his board, and said "okay."  I immediately named Ravager, he tried to sac in response and I told him that is not how my card works and my card had just resolved.  

If he had sacked while it was on the stack, it's likely I would have named Cranial Plating or some other relevant card on the board.  But he gained knowledge of what card I was going to name with Revoker, even though he didn't perceive it as gaining knowledge.  

The point of the story is:  It's impossible to know if you opponent is trying to gain some hidden knowledge from you, or if he really doesn't know what the cards do.  However, you should always be stern because the obligation is on them to read the cards, it's not on you to be a judge of character.  

I've been on the other sides of these hard lessons in the past, and it has made me a better player because of it. 

[MaximumCDawg]

The point of the story is:  It's impossible to know if you opponent is trying to gain some hidden knowledge from you, or if he really doesn't know what the cards do.  However, you should always be stern because the obligation is on them to read the cards, it's not on you to be a judge of character.  

I've been on the other sides of these hard lessons in the past, and it has made me a better player because of it.  

Yeah, but it depends on the goof-up.  Some clearly give you more information - drawing a card before vial, knowing what they're naming with Cabal Therapy or Revoker -- and some only very subtly give information.  Forgetting about a Sphere effect when casting a spell doesn't reveal any information when you point it out and ask them to finish tapping more mana later to correct it.  I mean, without more.  And ditto for the order in which you tap things for Wire.  It's a spectrum, and everyone just has to figure out what they're comfortable with.

[vaughnbros]

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."