I usually play multiplayer (vintage) casual, so from time to time, someone will go back on their play based on something that they didn't notice. But, is there any ruling dictating that you should tell everything that might trigger based on an action?
Example 1.1: If someone's attacking ME, must I tell them that I can sacrifice a creature with Falkenrath Aristocrat to make her indestructible?
Example 1.2: If I'm the one attacking someone, must I tell them the that I can sacrifice a human creature with Falkenrath Aristocrat and make her possibly a 5/2?
Example 2.1: Someone wants to attack me, but they ask first what I have on my table that can block their creatures. I say that I have a 4/1 Falkenrath Aristocrat and an 3/2 Agent of the Fates. They take it for granted that at most I can sacrifice Agent of the Fates and have a lonely 5/2 Falkenrath Aristocrat. Do I have to remind them what possibly any secondary triggers might happen from Angelic Renewal?
Besides all these, what you think should be the boundaries of good will in a game? I usually them if asked, and prefer to ask before taking actions such as declaring attacks. Also, what about countering an spell or triggering effects? I have had games where things spells are cast, recast and countered, and only after everything's done, someone wants to have players to decide wethe pay mana for Rhystic Study (In here, I understand that it's hard to focus on what's happening and also remember to trigger Rhystic Study, but you should blame it on the "you may"). How do you guys feel about going back on plays? And what about when someone goes back in a play where you have already shown something from your hand?
Yeah, it's a lot, but I think everyone will benefit from answers from these matters. Good Easter everyone! Hope Kezzerdrix brings everyone something happy!
No. You are not required to tell them what you can/will do. They are expected to understand how your cards work, which is why they're allowed to look at and read them at any time. If they attack into your board and you make that play to their detriment then it's their fault for not seeing the play.
As far as the good will thing... that's a totally grey area. If we're just playing casually with friends I tend to be forthcoming with things, especially if they haven't seen the deck before. Most of my friends right now aren't the best players, but it's fun just playing casually with them.
Going back on plays is another really iffy subject. Casual groups tend to be ok with small rewinds on plays that are obviously just due to forgetting something. Like someone attacking into Circle of Flame with 1/1 goblin tokens because they didn't notice you playing it last turn. Now if they're going back on a play because you played something from you're hand... most people usually aren't ok with that.
I mostly agree with wolfaxe. If you are playing competitively, take backs are not allowed unless you clarify they are okay with your opponent beforehand. If I am playing with friends, I ALMOST always play with take backs. Sometimes I will be a stickler because the outcome of the game easily depends on them forgetting I have regeneration or something like that.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Read the cards, guys. You might be supposed how many times your questions can be answered with a careful re-read. If that doesn't work, think about it! Wizards doesn't want to break the game, so of course you can't do something like use omniscience to play a fireball for 9,000 damage.
The only documents that exist to cover such policy relate to tournament Magic, and even then Regular REL assumes that there are Judges available to get involved and make judgement calls. In competitive Magic, takebacks are generally not allowed, excepting sometimes minor takebacks with the opponent's permission. In casual games, it's best as a subject that the group agrees on beforehand, so that everyone's expectations are the same.
I will add that in 4+ player games, board states can frequently get unreasonably complicated, and analysis versus speed of play is a real concern. If you prohibit takebacks, players who are invested in doing well will feel more obligation to examine every card on the table, which can be a lengthy and mentally exhausting experience on large boards and lead to slow play. If this is the reason people are making takebacks (as suggested by your implication that your opponent hasn't read any of your cards before attacking), it's reasonable to agree on a house rule that if someone asks a question about your board, you briefly fill them in on all the possibly relevant cards you have in play.
On the other hand, if this is happening just because people aren't invested in the game and aren't bothering to take any time to make strategic decisions, perhaps limiting takebacks would increase player's investment.
Ultimately, it comes down to the environment you and your group want to foster.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
DCI Level 2 Judge
If your question is "What would a judge do is this situation?", only one person's answer is relevant, and that is the Head Judge at your event. I can quote the rules, but I don't know your HJ.
Infinite takebacks are just bad in my opinion because they can be abused and you never learn to properly asses the boardstate if you do not get punished for misplays
I'm going to assume you meant to write assess and not "asses"... Very different words.
Warning issued for spam.
On this note, we're locking the thread. The question was answered well multiple times, and we don't want this to become a discussion about funny typos.
Read the cards, guys. You might be supposed how many times your questions can be answered with a careful re-read. If that doesn't work, think about it! Wizards doesn't want to break the game, so of course you can't do something like use omniscience to play a fireball for 9,000 damage.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
SCENARIO 1:
I have Falkenrath Aristocrat and Agent of the Fates on the battlefield.
Example 1.1: If someone's attacking ME, must I tell them that I can sacrifice a creature with Falkenrath Aristocrat to make her indestructible?
Example 1.2: If I'm the one attacking someone, must I tell them the that I can sacrifice a human creature with Falkenrath Aristocrat and make her possibly a 5/2?
SCENARIO 2:
I have Angelic Renewal, Agent of the Fates and Falkenrath Aristocrat on the battlefield.
Example 2.1: Someone wants to attack me, but they ask first what I have on my table that can block their creatures. I say that I have a 4/1 Falkenrath Aristocrat and an 3/2 Agent of the Fates. They take it for granted that at most I can sacrifice Agent of the Fates and have a lonely 5/2 Falkenrath Aristocrat. Do I have to remind them what possibly any secondary triggers might happen from Angelic Renewal?
Besides all these, what you think should be the boundaries of good will in a game? I usually them if asked, and prefer to ask before taking actions such as declaring attacks. Also, what about countering an spell or triggering effects? I have had games where things spells are cast, recast and countered, and only after everything's done, someone wants to have players to decide wethe pay mana for Rhystic Study (In here, I understand that it's hard to focus on what's happening and also remember to trigger Rhystic Study, but you should blame it on the "you may"). How do you guys feel about going back on plays? And what about when someone goes back in a play where you have already shown something from your hand?
Yeah, it's a lot, but I think everyone will benefit from answers from these matters. Good Easter everyone! Hope Kezzerdrix brings everyone something happy!
As far as the good will thing... that's a totally grey area. If we're just playing casually with friends I tend to be forthcoming with things, especially if they haven't seen the deck before. Most of my friends right now aren't the best players, but it's fun just playing casually with them.
Going back on plays is another really iffy subject. Casual groups tend to be ok with small rewinds on plays that are obviously just due to forgetting something. Like someone attacking into Circle of Flame with 1/1 goblin tokens because they didn't notice you playing it last turn. Now if they're going back on a play because you played something from you're hand... most people usually aren't ok with that.
I will add that in 4+ player games, board states can frequently get unreasonably complicated, and analysis versus speed of play is a real concern. If you prohibit takebacks, players who are invested in doing well will feel more obligation to examine every card on the table, which can be a lengthy and mentally exhausting experience on large boards and lead to slow play. If this is the reason people are making takebacks (as suggested by your implication that your opponent hasn't read any of your cards before attacking), it's reasonable to agree on a house rule that if someone asks a question about your board, you briefly fill them in on all the possibly relevant cards you have in play.
On the other hand, if this is happening just because people aren't invested in the game and aren't bothering to take any time to make strategic decisions, perhaps limiting takebacks would increase player's investment.
Ultimately, it comes down to the environment you and your group want to foster.
If your question is "What would a judge do is this situation?", only one person's answer is relevant, and that is the Head Judge at your event. I can quote the rules, but I don't know your HJ.
I'm going to assume you meant to write assess and not "asses"... Very different words.
Warning issued for spam.
On this note, we're locking the thread. The question was answered well multiple times, and we don't want this to become a discussion about funny typos.
-MadMage