I have a question about a player casting inspiration at competitive REL against a tapped out opponent.
Player A: "Casting inspiration"
Player B: "Well I'm tapped out, nothing counters for 0 in rtr limited"
Player A: Draws 2 cards
Player B: Wait....
What happens next?
sounds to me like player b passed on priority and looses his/her chance to add anything to the stack.
IF player a felt like being nice or foolish he could let the player b do something. A judge would prolly get called and it would be up to them if what player b said would officially count as a passing of priority.
My question is not so much about priority as it is about targeting. Player A never announced targets before drawing cards. Therefore he is drawing cards illegal, grounds for a game loss I think.
Edit: My question also relates to how the game state effects rulings. A slightly different scenario
Player A: inspiration
Player B: go on
Player A: draws 2
Player B: wait... when I said 'go on' I meant choose targets, not that I was passing priority.
Inspiration would likely only be played in a limited game, where milling is often a very real option. Do these things effect judge rulings?
While there are many pre-defined tournament shortcuts, there are also some that aren't. Judges don't like throwing out game losses left right and center - they'll do it if there's a strong reason to, like player A casting the spell and then drawing cards before B even has a chance to say he might respond - but in this case, we're talking about a spell which in 99% of cases is going to be cast targetting the controlling player. Not only does virtually every judge know this, but virtually every player does too.
If the situation played out as above - where player A gives player B a chance to respond, and B does nothing, including not verifying targets (indicating he's aware its being cast with A as the target), I'd be satisfied that both players were aware that A was the target.
As usual, I must point out that most of my judging experience involves straightforward matters unlike this, but I'd be surprised if this was not a valid outcome.
Seems reasonable, what confuses me is how much a judge takes board state into account when making rulings, i.e. what if both players have 3 cards in library, etc.
Basically, your philosophy seems to be simple: use common sense.
That seems like a pretty reasonable judging philosophy. My confusion was regarding where a spell has multiple options, but one is used 99% of the time, if no targets are declared, if its simply assumed your opponent used the 'optimal' mode. You seem to affirm this. Also, if a player casts a lava spike , but never target, are they considered to be actually casting a spell. Basically, I was claiming that if targets werent declared after a reasonable period of time, you should ask about it, or assume the spell was not yet cast. Your response appears to indicate if the spell has a '99% of the time' mode, then its alright to omit targets, as they are understood.
This situation is not so clear cut as it might first seem. It caused a ton of confusion with cards like cavern of souls , which caused a rare rules philosophy change regarding one specific card. Basically, the question was whether you could counter a spell cast using cavern if they didnt state they were using cavern.
In the end, they changed the rules to make it assume the player is using the uncounterable clause unless otherwise stated. This fits with the common sense philosophy you have, but caused a lot of internal rules discussion from what I read.
If both players are at 2 and player A casts sign in blood without declaring a target, and waits to see if there is a response. Player B waits a reasonable period of time (say 4-5 seconds), and then says "resolves". Player B then says "you go to 0".
If player B understands that targets had not been declared, is he obligated to point that out? In his perspective, he is waiting for targets to be declared. After a reasonable time has passed it becomes clear that it is actually player A has cast sign with the 'obvious' self target, and so player B can say resolves and win. Once he says 'you go to 0' its difficult to back up the game state, as its quite reasonable to think that player A hadnt realized he was going to die until player B pointed it out. At the same time, perhaps player A thought the obvious mode here was to finish off his opponent.
Due to the overall complexity of magic, evaluating the situation based on the game-state, while it seems to have many upsides, also appears to have some pitfalls. I guess there is simply no fool proof way to do things though
This thread, and your other thread on the Chandra's Fury reminded me of a sitation I saw in the Modern portion of Pro Tour Return to Ravnica. Unfortunately, I forgot the names of the players, but one of them was a brit. We'll call him player A and his opponent Player B. The situation was as follows:
Player A: Cast Kitchen Finks
Player B: Cast a counter spell that draws a card (can't remember the name, perhaps it was Cryptic Command it was Remand )
Player A: Without saying a word taps for , momentarily reveals Mana Leak then snaps it back quickly as he realises his opponent has 3 untapped lands.
Plyaer B: Called for a judge and says "He tapped the lands and I saw the spell"
Player A: Agrees with the series of events
The judges ruling was that the spell was cast. Player A wanted to then target his own Kitchen Finks , but the judge said that as no targets were announced, it was assumed to be the top object on the stack. Obviously, this is not exactly the same situation as either of your scenarios, but I think it gives an indication of how judges might rule given certain calls to make. There must be many more sitations on coverage and I'm sure if you watch regularly you will be able to build up a picture of the Pro scene and how things go down.
LoveMonkey: Appreciate you posting actual judge calls. Very helpful to see their reasoning. This seems to support the 'when their is targeting confusion, assume most likely scenario'.
Lovemonkey: Where did you read/see that? Is it a 'report' or live coverage or...??
I watched the match on youtube so I actually saw it happen. I will see if I can find the video again and post a link here.
Skip to 1:50:55 for the start of the game or 1:53:40 for the judges call. He left it revealed for a little longer than I remembered, but the situation is pretty much as I described.
No worries. I am not that concerned with that specific match, just wondered where to see things like that. Was it on some 'official' channel, or were you just looking for any MTG games?
I just play these videos sometimes whilst I'm working and listen to the commentary. If something interesting happens I wind it back and see what was going on. It's from the Wizards youtube channel.
This reminds me of an Esper Charm story I heard once.
Player A: Cast Esper Charm
Player B: "Targeting who?"
Player A: "Myself"
Player B: "Judge!"
Esper Charm player intended to draw two cards but the only mode that targets is discard two. As I recall the story it was ruled that Player A cast the discard mode on himself.
These stories remind of why it is I try to never use shortcuts and do everything very formally when I play Magic.
I cannot decide if that esper charm play is awesome or pure evil
I read up about this 'trick' and it turns out to most likely be illegal, so don't try it (well, its perfectly fine to try, your opponent does something confusing, and you call a judge and let the judge sort it out). However, I believe the correct judge ruling is draw 2 but get a warning for the player who was unclear with his modes.
Also, baiting your opponent 'targeting who' could get you DQ'ed for unsporting conduct
EDIT: Is the judging philosophy "ruling by intent" still how things are done?
I was looking for articles on philosophy to better understand the line between holding your opponent to good technical play and unsporting conduct and this seems a good explanation, although written in 2004
The article goes over baiting your opponent into rules violations with queries such as 'targeting who?', if you know perfectly well exactly what is going on (the baiting player is in big trouble in this case)
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.