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?
Hi,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
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.
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 wh
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?
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 eff
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.
No judge would rule that way. It's obvious who is getting targetted, and player B cannot respond anyway.
No judge would rule that way.It's obvious who is getting targetted, and player B cannot respond anyway.
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.
No judge would rule that way. It's obvious who is getting targetted, and player B cannot respond anyway.
In this case, I agree, because its clear he was passing priority. What if he had not passed priority?
I don't think its clear, as I've said, milling is a very real option in grindy limited games. The player could very well be waiting to hear who the target is before deciding to counter. Even if he has no counter, if the judge makes the decision based off that, he is giving the inspiration player an unfair knowledge of the other players hand.
No judge would rule that way.It's obvious who is getting targetted, and player B cannot respond anyway. [/quote]In this case, I agree, because its clear he was passing priority. What if he had not passed priority?I don't think its clear, as I've said
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.
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 c
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.
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.
I don't think its clear, as I've said, milling is a very real option in grindy limited games. The player could very well be waiting to hear who the target is before deciding to counter
Every player who has played Magic for more than a month knows that you so rarely cast a targetted card draw spell targetting another player that you explicitly announce it if you do. Therefore, no announcement = targetting self. Even with mill available, it still follows.
If player A hadn't passed priority and had just drawn the cards, that's different. He's drawing extra cards when he shouldn't as the spell hasn't resolved yet. I think that'd be a game loss even if player B couldn't respond, but I'd ask a second opinion from a more experienced judge. ^^
Every player who has played Magic for more than a month knows that you so rarely cast a targetted card draw spell targetting another player that you explicitly announce it if you do. Therefore, no announcement = ta
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.
That's why a lot of these hypotheticals all really depend on the situation. However, as a rule of thumb, we (players and judges) are going to assume Inspiration is cast targetting the controlling player unless they've explicitly said otherwise, because under normal circumstances we'd think most players would expect the target to be the controlling player, and would say otherwise if they didn't think so.
Ask yourself - have you ever seen someone cast Inspiration targetting another player and not actually say it was targetting the other player?
That's why a lot of these hypotheticals all really depend on the situation. However, as a rule of thumb, we (players and judges) are going to assume Inspiration is cast targetting the controlling player unless they
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
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
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.
Cheers
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
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: 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'.
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.
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.CheersEDIT: www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ud1AdB5u9Tw Skip to 1:50:55 for the start of the game or 1:53:40 for the judges call. He l
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?
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.
Cheers
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.Cheers
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 situations 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.
It is worthy of note that this is a assumed shortcut that is specifically outlined in the rules.
4.2 Tournament Shortcuts [...] Certain conventional tournament shortcuts used in Magic are detailed below. If a player wishes to deviate from these, he or she should be explicit about doing so. [...] • A player who casts a spell or activates an ability that targets an object on the stack is assumed to target the legal target closest to the top of the stack unless the player specifies otherwise.
It is worthy of note that this is a assumed shortcut that is specifically outlined in the rules.
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.
This reminds me of an Esper Charm story I heard once.Player A: Cast Esper CharmPlayer B: "Targeting who?"Player A: "Myself"Player B: "Judge!"Esper Charm player intended to draw two cards but the only mode that targ
It is worthy of note that this is a assumed shortcut that is specifically outlined in the rules.
4.2 Tournament Shortcuts [...] Certain conventional tournament shortcuts used in Magic are detailed below. If a player wishes to deviate from these, he or she should be explicit about doing so. [...] • A player who casts a spell or activates an ability that targets an object on the stack is assumed to target the legal target closest to the top of the stack unless the player specifies otherwise.
Yea, that's a good point and should be noted. I am not familiar with tournament rules and didn't know that was actually written down. What I was also thinking about was the fact that he hadn't technically finished casting the spell when he realised he didn't want to cast it, but it had still been considered cast.
Cheers
[/quote]Yea, that's a good point and should be noted. I am not familiar with tournament rules and didn't know that was actually written down. What I was also thinking about was the fact that he hadn't technically finished casting the spell when he
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.
It would be a really tough call, whether I would punch Player B or the judge first.
It would be a really tough call, whether I would punch Player B or the judge first.
I cannot decide if that esper charm play is awesome or pure evil
Edit: The 'pure evil' play is if you call the judge after he draws the cards. That seems really slimy but if he doesnt wait to draw you might not be able to stop him in time. This effectively gives the charm a 4th mode 'lose the game'
I assume you at least have to tell your opponent "Then you discard" with an immense grin. If the sequence goes "Targeting who?" "Myself" and then he draws two immediatly, he's wrong because you never passed priority anyway. If you do pass priority without saying anything and he draws, a judge could very well rule that you let him draw cards when you had plenty of time to stop him, and I'm pretty sure that since it's intentionnal, that would be Cheating.
That is still an awesome trick
I assume you at least have to tell your opponent "Then you discard" with an immense grin. If the sequence goes "Targeting who?" "Myself" and then he draws two immediatly, he's wrong because you never passed priority anyway. If you do pass priority wi
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)
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 jud
, momentarily reveals Mana Leak 
