|
5 months ago ::
Jan 01, 2013 - 6:27AM
#1
|
|
|
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 A: Draws 2 cards Player B: Wait.... What happens next?
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 01, 2013 - 7:00AM
#2
|
Date Joined:
May 21, 2010
|
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.
:For autocarding, write [ c ] card name [ / c ]
You can also do [*c=lightning bolt]'Bolt[/c*] to get 'Bolt
sigged because I always forget to do it
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 01, 2013 - 7:04AM
#3
|
|
|
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?
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 01, 2013 - 7:16AM
#4
|
Date Joined:
Jun 23, 2009
|
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.
I am the Twilight Sparkle of The Pony Co. 
Ponies are the best animals on the planet. A cartoon about them made for little girls is the best show on TV. Join the movement. Rest of sig
Show
Disclaimers
Show
My initial responses to rules questions are usually just answers. If you want an explanation as to why, say so.
Just because it says I'm there, I'm not necessarily there. I leave my browser open so I don't have to reload ~30 tabs.
Anyone who wants to text duel me through either PM or chat can just PM me with a format (and a time if playing through chat). I don't play standard.
# Card Blind Hall of Fame
Show
3CB
Show
3CB #1 (1/30/11): Won by silasw, with Mishra's Factory  , Orzhov Basilica  , Vindicate  .
3CB #2 (2/13/11): Won by Vektor480, with Mishra's Workshop  , Ensnaring Bridge  , Scalding Tongs 
3CB #3(2/20/11): Joint win between defuse, with Saprazzan Skerry  , Scalding Tongs , Energy Field  ; and Mown, with The Tabernacle at Pendrell Vale  , Inkmoth Nexus  , Sheltered Valley 
3CB #4(3/13/11): Won by Mown, with Keldon Megaliths  , The Tabernacle at Pendrell Vale , Boros Garrison 
3CB #5(3/20/11): Won by silasw, with Black Lotus  , Channel  , Emrakul, the Aeons Torn 
5CB
Show
quotes
Show
So, how would I use a card that has a large  in the top half and "sui?l? -- pu?? ?is?q" across the middle?
Winning is not important if:
1. You win by a blowout.
2. You pay billions of dollars in cards to win. If you like wasting money just to win one game, while you could have saved it to lose a few and end up winning more in the future, then it is fine by me.
what?
do you ceremonially light your deck on fire after a win?
Or did no one notice Transmogrifying Licid  before. (And by not notice, I mean covered their ears and shouted LA LA LA LA  )
Hmmm...
I think the most awkward situation at the moment is simply the Myr Welder / Equipment / Licid / Aura craziness, but I'm pretty sure he's aware of it.
If the most awkward thing going on right now involves Licids, I declare victory.
We regret to inform you of Trevor Kidd's untimely demise in an unfortunate accident involving a mysteriously blown breaker box and a photophobic creature of unknown origin at his home near Renton, Washington. We at the Wizards Community apologize for any inconvenience or delay, and assure you we'll be preparing a replacement to assume his duties as soon as we finish warming up the cloning vats.
[02:47:46] It doesn't merely "come out of suspend" - you take the last time counter off, and then suspend triggers and say "now cast that! CAST IT NOOOOOW!"
[02:47:49] Because suspend has no indoors voice
[10:11:33] !opalescence
[10:11:33] Opalescence {2WW} |Enchantment| Each other non-Aura enchantment is a creature with power and toughness each equal to its converted mana cost. It's still an enchantment. · Reserved,UD-R,Vin,Leg,Cla,USBC
[10:11:51] *sigh*
[10:12:10] Otecko: Do you have a question about Opalescence?
[10:12:17] sure
[10:12:23] $10 on humility interaction
[10:12:25] :P
[10:12:29] :D
[10:12:47] humility + opalescence put into play by replenish
Ego
Show
Mage is awesome, BTW.
Dear Mage24365,
You are totally awesome. Thank you so much. I hope you are able to dine in Paradise without kicking the bucket to actually get there, and that every dollar you ever make magically becomes two more.
I don't think there are any cards like that.
There are things that prevent you from activating activated abilities, things that increase their cost, and things that counter them, but I don't think anything triggers from them specifically.
There are things that trigger from targeting, so that might be relevant, but I can't think of anything that triggers from targeting a player.
I'm almost positive there's nothing that triggers from damage being prevented.
Rings of Brighthearth  ; Dormant Gomazoa  ; Samite Ministration  .
Well played.
 | This user loves Wikipe-tan, the
cutest personification of Wikipedia. |
^Put this in your sig; PM me for html code.^<
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 01, 2013 - 7:18AM
#5
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 01, 2013 - 7:20AM
#6
|
Date Joined:
Sep 16, 2009
|
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.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 01, 2013 - 7:22AM
#7
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 01, 2013 - 7:23AM
#8
|
Date Joined:
Sep 16, 2009
|
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. ^^
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 01, 2013 - 7:29AM
#9
|
Date Joined:
Sep 16, 2009
|
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?
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 01, 2013 - 5:51PM
#10
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
