I was visiting a friend at his local LGS's weekly legacy event. They normally have a core group of 16 people every week and it's normally a very chill experience.
However last week they had a couple of new guys, they seemed like the extremely competitive type not really saying much and very much into the game.
I was sitting next to a Storm vs some blue combo deck in U/R colors but didn't scream Sneak and show. Storm player trying to do his combo and casts Infernal Tutor, doesn't say anything kinda looks like he's thinking.
His opponent goes: "Are you maintaining priority?"
Storm player simply goes: "It's on the stack."
This exchange goes on for about 1-2 more times before the non storm guy attempts to counter it but the storm guy tries to crack the Lion's Eye Diamond as if he maintained priority.
They start to get into an argument to the point where the storm player goes: "I had priority, I did not pass it to you, I merely said it's on the stack."
Turned into a shouting match and both of them were asked to leave. Kinda left a sour note on our day at our quiet shop in
How would you handle this situation if you were in this game?
I'm not a judge so I'm no rules expert. I'd imagine though this entire problem would have been avoided if the storm player had clearly stated he had priority. Would the lack of stating maintaining priority act as tacit passing of priority?
I'm not sure I see the problem with the legality of the play. You say the second player attempted to counter the Infernal Tutor, in response to which the first player cracked their Lion's Eye Diamond. But that's legal, since the first player receives priority again (so they can crack the Diamond) if the second player responds (such as by trying to counter the first player's spell). (Also, on a strategic note, I'm not sure what purpose cracking the Diamond serves if the Tutor is being countered, other than leaving the first player with no cards at all and no way to get any?)
What wouldn't be legal would be for the first player to fish for responses and then, if there aren't any (no attempt to counter the Tutor), crack the Diamond. If the first player fishes for responses without cracking the Diamond, and there aren't any, then the Tutor will resolve right then, without an opportunity for the first player to crack the Diamond (and discard their hand), which is probably not what the first player wants.
In tournaments players are assumed to pass priority after casting a spell unless they explicitly maintain priority. Since the first player failed to do that (trying to be vague instead), then they didn't maintain priority (but like I said, I don't see how that affects the legality of the plays as described).
Thanks for the response. I think the guy was trying to be vague to fish a response or try to cover up he failed to maintain priority.
In tournaments players are assumed to pass priority after casting a spell unless they explicitly maintain priority. Since the first player failed to do that (trying to be vague instead), then they didn't maintain priority (but like I said, I don't see how that affects the legality of the plays as described).
I'll keep this mind in the future so I won't be subject to shady plays myself.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Standard
R/W Devotion
Mono-R Devotion
Legacy
Burn
Punishing Jund
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
However last week they had a couple of new guys, they seemed like the extremely competitive type not really saying much and very much into the game.
I was sitting next to a Storm vs some blue combo deck in U/R colors but didn't scream Sneak and show. Storm player trying to do his combo and casts Infernal Tutor, doesn't say anything kinda looks like he's thinking.
His opponent goes: "Are you maintaining priority?"
Storm player simply goes: "It's on the stack."
This exchange goes on for about 1-2 more times before the non storm guy attempts to counter it but the storm guy tries to crack the Lion's Eye Diamond as if he maintained priority.
They start to get into an argument to the point where the storm player goes: "I had priority, I did not pass it to you, I merely said it's on the stack."
Turned into a shouting match and both of them were asked to leave. Kinda left a sour note on our day at our quiet shop in
How would you handle this situation if you were in this game?
I'm not a judge so I'm no rules expert. I'd imagine though this entire problem would have been avoided if the storm player had clearly stated he had priority. Would the lack of stating maintaining priority act as tacit passing of priority?
R/W Devotion
Mono-R Devotion
Legacy
Burn
Punishing Jund
What wouldn't be legal would be for the first player to fish for responses and then, if there aren't any (no attempt to counter the Tutor), crack the Diamond. If the first player fishes for responses without cracking the Diamond, and there aren't any, then the Tutor will resolve right then, without an opportunity for the first player to crack the Diamond (and discard their hand), which is probably not what the first player wants.
In tournaments players are assumed to pass priority after casting a spell unless they explicitly maintain priority. Since the first player failed to do that (trying to be vague instead), then they didn't maintain priority (but like I said, I don't see how that affects the legality of the plays as described).
I'll keep this mind in the future so I won't be subject to shady plays myself.
R/W Devotion
Mono-R Devotion
Legacy
Burn
Punishing Jund