Yup, not a fan, and my primary objection comes from the corner cases of having to make a distinction between "beneficial" effects and detrimental ones. Though usually this is really obvious, this is not a distinction I think the rules should be making. It also adds quite a bit of new things to memorize and/or keep handy, when the previous version was streamlined and simple; you don't ignore mandatory triggers.
Yup, not a fan, and my primary objection comes from the corner cases of having to make a distinction between "beneficial" effects and detrimental ones. Though usually this is really obvious, this is not a distinction I think the rules should be making. It also adds quite a bit of new things to memorize and/or keep handy, when the previous version was streamlined and simple; you don't ignore mandatory triggers.
Indeed, the definition is of anything as "beneficial" is completely arbitrary. For example, prior to Scars of Mirrodin, anyone playing Kor Skyfisher would have probably viewed the necessity to bounce a creature as detrimental. But then, suddenly with the introduction of Argentum Armor and the (albiet short-lived) ascension of Quest for the Holy Relic, it became a perk to be able to bounce either an Ornithopter or a Memnite.
Indeed, the definition is of anything as "beneficial" is completely arbitrary. For example, prior to Scars of Mirrodin, anyone playing Kor Skyfisher would have probably viewed the necessity to bounce a creature as detrimental. But then, suddenly with the introduction of Argentum Armor and the (albiet short-lived) ascension of Quest for the Holy Relic, it became a perk to be able to bounce either an Ornithopter or a Memnite.
It was used before then In boros to reuse Goblin Bushwacker and lands for land fall triggers.
Yup, not a fan, and my primary objection comes from the corner cases of having to make a distinction between "beneficial" effects and detrimental ones. Though usually this is really obvious, this is not a distinction I think the rules should be making. It also adds quite a bit of new things to memorize and/or keep handy, when the previous version was streamlined and simple; you don't ignore mandatory triggers.
The new version is also streamlined and simple - you don't ignore your own mandatory triggers. Unless you are a judge, there's nothing else to memorize.
The only time that a judge needs to distinguish something "beneficial" is when a trigger gives another creature an ability. Those are always small things like Flying or First Strike or can't block. There aren't really corner cases.
The new version is also streamlined and simple - you don't ignore your own mandatory triggers. Unless you are a judge, there's nothing else to memorize.
The only time that a judge needs to distinguish something "beneficial" is when a trigger gives another creature an ability. Those are always small things like Flying or First Strike or can't block. There aren't really corner cases.
I think you're mostly right... but here's one concern I have, and is a very reasonable scenario:
A judge is watching a ISD block limited game. Player A has a Nearheath Stalker and Rakish Heir and some other creatures in play. Player A attacks with his creatures, and through combat the Nearheath Stalker deals combat damage to Player B and the Rakish Heir dies in combat. Neither player points out the trigger that should put the +1/+1 counter on Nearheath Stalker.
Under the new policy, the judge should NOT step in and force the trigger to resolve, correct? Even if the game state is such that the +1/+1 counter would clearly be detrimental to Player A in this case?
If that's the case, my main concern as a judge is that I don't have the ability to investigate to see if Player A missed that trigger intentionally (and was therefore cheating).
The issue I see then is that players can purposely miss "lapsing triggers" in the corner cases where they are actually detrimental, hope the opponent doesn't notice, and a judge is powerless to correct the game state. If I were a judge in the above scenario, I'd find it really frustrating that I couldn't step in and force that trigger to resolve.
I think the core of this issue comes down to this part of the change:
Judges should not intervene when they witness a missed trigger that is a lapsing ability, as defined below
.
I guess I don't understand why this is necessary? If you remove that portion, the situation above is a non-issue.
If you feel like someone's cheating, you always investigate; I don't see how the new IPG changes that. It's just that if someone's clearly forgetting their own triggers, you -- as a judge -- no longer automatically point that out to them.
If you feel like someone's cheating, you always investigate; I don't see how the new IPG changes that. It's just that if someone's clearly forgetting their own triggers, you -- as a judge -- no longer automatically point that out to them.
This. Also, don't forget you can always pull them aside under some pretense, and interview them away from the table.
This looks pretty good to me. A lot better than the previous version.
Now that players are allowed to enforce their opponent's triggers, the players don't have to know anything about which abilities are "lapsing". Only the judges do.
Also, the decision of whether or not an ability is "beneficial," while it might require a judgement call once in a while, actually doesn't matter too much. If the opponent catches the problem right away, it doesn't matter what the judge decides. Only if the opponent waits more than 1/3 of a turn to point out the problem does the situation come up, and if the ability is genuinely detrimental in the game state, this is not very likely to happen. And if it does, and the opponent gets an adverse ruling, well, tough toenails. It's really his or her own fault for not being on top of the game.
Quote from "Missed Triggers: The DVD Commentary" »
Aegis Angel - Lapsing. It gives another creature an ability (with a duration) and targets, so it can't just happen.
I feel compelled to point out that Aegis Angel doesn't actually grant an ability to anything. But we all know what you mean.
I absolutely loathe the idea that the rules are different for Competitive VS Regular REL. This seriously makes me never want to play Regular REL tournaments. It doesn't matter that Regular REL is the training ground of sorts. It is still sanctioned Magic the Gathering, there are still prizes etc. I do not want to tell my opponent that I am dead from his Falkenrath Noble ever!
When I was a kid my mother was making cookies. She told me repeatedly don't touch them they are hot because they just came out of the oven. I didn't learn that cookies were nuclear out of the oven until I decided to grab at one while she wasn't looking. That was the last time I did that.
Players at Regular REL are not going to be learning from having their triggers pointed out to them, they are just going to serendipitously benefit and I will be forever frustrated as they repeatedly have their triggers pointed out to them by me week in week out. When it starts costing them, they will learn.
I think the core of this issue comes down to this part of the change:
.
Judges should not intervene when they witness a missed trigger that is a lapsing ability, as defined below
I guess I don't understand why this is necessary? If you remove that portion, the situation above is a non-issue.
If they don't have that line of text some judges could be very "vigilant" on player A's turn making sure he is gaining from his lapsing triggers and then not pay so much attention on player B's turn (on purpose or otherwise) which would make it appear that the judge is biased toward player A.
I absolutely loathe the idea that the rules are different for Competitive VS Regular REL. This seriously makes me never want to play Regular REL tournaments. It doesn't matter that Regular REL is the training ground of sorts. It is still sanctioned Magic the Gathering, there are still prizes etc. I do not want to tell my opponent that I am dead from his Falkenrath Noble ever!
When I was a kid my mother was making cookies. She told me repeatedly don't touch them they are hot because they just came out of the oven. I didn't learn that cookies were nuclear out of the oven until I decided to grab at one while she wasn't looking. That was the last time I did that.
Players at Regular REL are not going to be learning from having their triggers pointed out to them, they are just going to serendipitously benefit and I will be forever frustrated as they repeatedly have their triggers pointed out to them by me week in week out. When it starts costing them, they will learn.
I think most people will eventually learn via having people pointing out things that they forget. It's not always necessary for people to learn through punishment. We do need to consider friendly environment. Personally, I feel that the "friendly" part is a very big deal when we talk about Regular events.
It does matter that Regular REL is the training ground. You can beat people up in the training ground... some of them may be stronger, but the others will leave. It's a very bad idea to induce competitive environment everywhere. Some men (and women) simply want to have fun.
If this makes you never want to play Regular REL tournaments... May be Regular REL tournaments are not meant for you, perhaps?
I absolutely loathe the idea that the rules are different for Competitive VS Regular REL. This seriously makes me never want to play Regular REL tournaments. It doesn't matter that Regular REL is the training ground of sorts. It is still sanctioned Magic the Gathering, there are still prizes etc. I do not want to tell my opponent that I am dead from his Falkenrath Noble ever!
So in other words you're a fan of this change, because now you get your wish in Competitive REL and Professional REL tournaments, but you don't think it goes far enough?
Personally, I'm fine with it. At least now, people like you can play in Competitive and Professional tournaments and have the kind of environment you want. Meanwhile, people who don't like it can still play at Regular REL.
Is there any guidance on what a judge should do upon discovering that a player at Regular REL has been failing to inform his or her opponent of missed triggers, thinking that these changes also apply to Regular? Is this a case for educating as usual, or is it a more serious issue?
There's nothing specific I've seen in either document, but I would at least ask a question to find out if the player is aware of the policy and/or difference in how it applies at Competitive REL versus Regular REL. (But this isn't much different in how we already treat derived information as free information at Regular REL, and that you can't do some of the stuff at FNM that you can do at a PTQ.)
In all likelihood, this is more a situation where you'd educate your players on the difference between RELs. Especially as this policy is going to be a learning experience for a lot of parties over the next month or two.
We're always told that it's only cheating if they are aware it's cheating. In a case like that, I'd just inform them that they are expected to alert their opponent about missed triggers, and fix what I could then let them continue.
As a judge I hate these with a passion. I like rules. I like black and white. I like that rule violations are defined. I like that penalties are defined. I despise the grey area the new IPG introduces. I see no benefit from it and massive frustration and awkwardness from situations they can produce. I'm not happy.
This. Also, don't forget you can always pull them aside under some pretense, and interview them away from the table.
I guess the situation I forsee is that when a player forgets his lapsing trigger in a situation where it benefits him to do so (as in the Rakish HeirNearheath Stalker situation), I'd like to be able to document that with a warning, as I'm unlikely to be able to get that player to admit that he did it purposefully, but if it seems at all "fishy" I'd like to have it noted that that happened in case he does it again in a future round. In a large Competitive or Professional REL event, the odds of me being the judge called the next time around are pretty slim, so I'd want that occurence documented in some form or another so the next judge knows this isn't the first time he "forgot" this lapsing trigger.
Correct me if I'm wrong but under the previous IPG, one of the reasons you'd issue a warning (as opposed to verbal caution) for a missed trigger is when you feel that there's a potential that it could have been used to purposely gain advantage, but there's enough ambiguity that you do not feel that the circumstances rise to the point of Cheating. Then, if the player committed the same infraction later in the tournament, you could point to that warning and use that as a justification to upgrade, or even potential evidence of Cheating.
Is there any way that as a judge I'd be premitted to document this occurence in any way under the new IPG?
How is this any different from the previous recent failed attempt to change the IPG? Can someone summarize the changes and what they mean, please? Thanks.
I guess I don't understand why this is necessary? If you remove that portion, the situation above is a non-issue.
Philosophically speaking, if a person is now responsible for keeping track of their own "beneficial" triggers (using the documented definition of "beneficial") then it doesn't make sense for a judge to point them out any more than it does for an opponent to point them out. If this part of the game is now considered part of competitive Magic strategy, then a judge shouldn't be reminding you how to play the game any more than your opponent should.
As players observing a competitive REL game we were previously encouraged to stop the game and call a judge if we saw players miss triggers (or point out mandatory ones as they happened? not sure if we were actually supposed to do that). Are we now not supposed to say anything if a trigger is missed?
I'm not a judge, so I'm just looking how this affects me as a player or someone watching a match after my own round finishes.
I like that they can go back and look over a history of sketchy plays to ban a player. I hope this will stop bertocheaty situations.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Dear kbx41,
You have received a warning at MTG Salvation Forums.
Reason:
-------
Flaming or Other Forms of Misbehavior
Saying that you sometimes wish people (in this case the implication is the staff) would fall down a well and get AIDS is hardly appropriate for the forum.
As players observing a competitive REL game we were previously encouraged to stop the game and call a judge if we saw players miss triggers (or point out mandatory ones as they happened? not sure if we were actually supposed to do that). Are we now not supposed to say anything if a trigger is missed?
I'm not a judge, so I'm just looking how this affects me as a player or someone watching a match after my own round finishes.
Assuming you were to pause the match and call a judge, the judge would say "okay, we don't step in for that. Hey, players, continue the game, nevermind." - you can't tell the players why you're stopping them anyway.
So the real answer is: once players learn of this rule, they shouldn't call a judge over this.
"Sufficiently advanced experience is indistinguishable from clairvoyance." -Carsten
"Ah those eyes, those horrible creepy eyes!" -Chaosof99
DCI Level 3 Judge & TO "I do not consider myself a hero. I know only what the Vec teach:
justice must always be served and corruption must always be opposed."
Go read! I am one of the three authors of Cranial Insertion.
But seriously, if you can't remember "Woapalanne", just call me Eli.
I would love to play every event at Competitive REL, but in my area there are GPT's PTQ's and the rare GP or SCG Open. If I only played in Competitive events, I would only play maybe twice a month.
Why even sanction Regular REL if the rules are different? Players should learn from mistakes in tournaments and coaching and teaching from opponents should come in practice and casual games. FNM is a tournament after all. I know I am beating a dead horse, and that WOTC will likely never change this but I obviously disagree with their philosophy here. I feel like the next step might involve allowing "take-backs", that is hyperbole but still. In Monopoly you don't have to remind your opponents to collect rent.
I also want to make a disclaimer that although I am spike-y in nature, I am not a jerk and I don't think I make games unfun for my opponents. I take my losses in stride most of the time, but I have literally played dozens of games where I had to repeatedly tell my opponent that I am losing life every turn due to their Curse of the Pierced Heart, or that their Shrine of Loyal Legions gets a counter because they cast a white spell etc. ad nauseum. Those losses are very unfun for me not just because I lost, but because it felt like my honesty had a hand in my losing.
I would love to play every event at Competitive REL, but in my area there are GPT's PTQ's and the rare GP or SCG Open. If I only played in Competitive events, I would only play maybe twice a month.
Why even sanction Regular REL if the rules are different? Players should learn from mistakes in tournaments and coaching and teaching from opponents should come in practice and casual games. FNM is a tournament after all. I know I am beating a dead horse, and that WOTC will likely never change this but I obviously disagree with their philosophy here. I feel like the next step might involve allowing "take-backs", that is hyperbole but still. In Monopoly you don't have to remind your opponents to collect rent.
I think you missed the point I was trying to make.
This is a change in the direction you are hoping for. Previously, EVERY TOURNAMENT WAS LIKE REGULAR REL. You had to remind your opponent of every trigger, or you got a penalty. Now, in Competitive tournaments, you don't have to do so any more. So, even though you didn't get your entire wish, you got half of it.
If you sanctioned Regular REL tournaments before, nothing has changed.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
http://wizards.com/wpn/Document.aspx?x=Magic_The_Gathering_Infraction_Procedure_Guide
Doesn't matter. A judge has to do what he has to do. LOL
And to stop some whining: 95% of Magic tournaments are Regular REL and nothing changes.
I run a Tumblr for Magic-related statistics, graphs, and quizzes. Come check it out!
Indeed, the definition is of anything as "beneficial" is completely arbitrary. For example, prior to Scars of Mirrodin, anyone playing Kor Skyfisher would have probably viewed the necessity to bounce a creature as detrimental. But then, suddenly with the introduction of Argentum Armor and the (albiet short-lived) ascension of Quest for the Holy Relic, it became a perk to be able to bounce either an Ornithopter or a Memnite.
GGG [Primer] Omnath, Big Green Beatstick Machine GGG
It was used before then In boros to reuse Goblin Bushwacker and lands for land fall triggers.
Daretti
Ezuri
Captain Sisay (In work)
The new version is also streamlined and simple - you don't ignore your own mandatory triggers. Unless you are a judge, there's nothing else to memorize.
The only time that a judge needs to distinguish something "beneficial" is when a trigger gives another creature an ability. Those are always small things like Flying or First Strike or can't block. There aren't really corner cases.
I think you're mostly right... but here's one concern I have, and is a very reasonable scenario:
A judge is watching a ISD block limited game. Player A has a Nearheath Stalker and Rakish Heir and some other creatures in play. Player A attacks with his creatures, and through combat the Nearheath Stalker deals combat damage to Player B and the Rakish Heir dies in combat. Neither player points out the trigger that should put the +1/+1 counter on Nearheath Stalker.
Under the new policy, the judge should NOT step in and force the trigger to resolve, correct? Even if the game state is such that the +1/+1 counter would clearly be detrimental to Player A in this case?
If that's the case, my main concern as a judge is that I don't have the ability to investigate to see if Player A missed that trigger intentionally (and was therefore cheating).
The issue I see then is that players can purposely miss "lapsing triggers" in the corner cases where they are actually detrimental, hope the opponent doesn't notice, and a judge is powerless to correct the game state. If I were a judge in the above scenario, I'd find it really frustrating that I couldn't step in and force that trigger to resolve.
I think the core of this issue comes down to this part of the change:
.
I guess I don't understand why this is necessary? If you remove that portion, the situation above is a non-issue.
----
Lightning Bolts don't kill creatures. State-based actions kill creatures.
This. Also, don't forget you can always pull them aside under some pretense, and interview them away from the table.
Now that players are allowed to enforce their opponent's triggers, the players don't have to know anything about which abilities are "lapsing". Only the judges do.
Also, the decision of whether or not an ability is "beneficial," while it might require a judgement call once in a while, actually doesn't matter too much. If the opponent catches the problem right away, it doesn't matter what the judge decides. Only if the opponent waits more than 1/3 of a turn to point out the problem does the situation come up, and if the ability is genuinely detrimental in the game state, this is not very likely to happen. And if it does, and the opponent gets an adverse ruling, well, tough toenails. It's really his or her own fault for not being on top of the game. I feel compelled to point out that Aegis Angel doesn't actually grant an ability to anything. But we all know what you mean.
When I was a kid my mother was making cookies. She told me repeatedly don't touch them they are hot because they just came out of the oven. I didn't learn that cookies were nuclear out of the oven until I decided to grab at one while she wasn't looking. That was the last time I did that.
Players at Regular REL are not going to be learning from having their triggers pointed out to them, they are just going to serendipitously benefit and I will be forever frustrated as they repeatedly have their triggers pointed out to them by me week in week out. When it starts costing them, they will learn.
If they don't have that line of text some judges could be very "vigilant" on player A's turn making sure he is gaining from his lapsing triggers and then not pay so much attention on player B's turn (on purpose or otherwise) which would make it appear that the judge is biased toward player A.
I think most people will eventually learn via having people pointing out things that they forget. It's not always necessary for people to learn through punishment. We do need to consider friendly environment. Personally, I feel that the "friendly" part is a very big deal when we talk about Regular events.
It does matter that Regular REL is the training ground. You can beat people up in the training ground... some of them may be stronger, but the others will leave. It's a very bad idea to induce competitive environment everywhere. Some men (and women) simply want to have fun.
If this makes you never want to play Regular REL tournaments... May be Regular REL tournaments are not meant for you, perhaps?
Personally, I'm fine with it. At least now, people like you can play in Competitive and Professional tournaments and have the kind of environment you want. Meanwhile, people who don't like it can still play at Regular REL.
There's nothing specific I've seen in either document, but I would at least ask a question to find out if the player is aware of the policy and/or difference in how it applies at Competitive REL versus Regular REL. (But this isn't much different in how we already treat derived information as free information at Regular REL, and that you can't do some of the stuff at FNM that you can do at a PTQ.)
In all likelihood, this is more a situation where you'd educate your players on the difference between RELs. Especially as this policy is going to be a learning experience for a lot of parties over the next month or two.
I guess the situation I forsee is that when a player forgets his lapsing trigger in a situation where it benefits him to do so (as in the Rakish Heir Nearheath Stalker situation), I'd like to be able to document that with a warning, as I'm unlikely to be able to get that player to admit that he did it purposefully, but if it seems at all "fishy" I'd like to have it noted that that happened in case he does it again in a future round. In a large Competitive or Professional REL event, the odds of me being the judge called the next time around are pretty slim, so I'd want that occurence documented in some form or another so the next judge knows this isn't the first time he "forgot" this lapsing trigger.
Correct me if I'm wrong but under the previous IPG, one of the reasons you'd issue a warning (as opposed to verbal caution) for a missed trigger is when you feel that there's a potential that it could have been used to purposely gain advantage, but there's enough ambiguity that you do not feel that the circumstances rise to the point of Cheating. Then, if the player committed the same infraction later in the tournament, you could point to that warning and use that as a justification to upgrade, or even potential evidence of Cheating.
Is there any way that as a judge I'd be premitted to document this occurence in any way under the new IPG?
Philosophically speaking, if a person is now responsible for keeping track of their own "beneficial" triggers (using the documented definition of "beneficial") then it doesn't make sense for a judge to point them out any more than it does for an opponent to point them out. If this part of the game is now considered part of competitive Magic strategy, then a judge shouldn't be reminding you how to play the game any more than your opponent should.
I'm not a judge, so I'm just looking how this affects me as a player or someone watching a match after my own round finishes.
Dear kbx41,
You have received a warning at MTG Salvation Forums.
Reason:
-------
Flaming or Other Forms of Misbehavior
Saying that you sometimes wish people (in this case the implication is the staff) would fall down a well and get AIDS is hardly appropriate for the forum.
I have 28 different EDH decks
Assuming you were to pause the match and call a judge, the judge would say "okay, we don't step in for that. Hey, players, continue the game, nevermind." - you can't tell the players why you're stopping them anyway.
So the real answer is: once players learn of this rule, they shouldn't call a judge over this.
"Sufficiently advanced experience is indistinguishable from clairvoyance." -Carsten
"Ah those eyes, those horrible creepy eyes!" -Chaosof99
DCI Level 3 Judge & TO
"I do not consider myself a hero. I know only what the Vec teach:
justice must always be served and corruption must always be opposed."
Go read! I am one of the three authors of Cranial Insertion.
But seriously, if you can't remember "Woapalanne", just call me Eli.
Why even sanction Regular REL if the rules are different? Players should learn from mistakes in tournaments and coaching and teaching from opponents should come in practice and casual games. FNM is a tournament after all. I know I am beating a dead horse, and that WOTC will likely never change this but I obviously disagree with their philosophy here. I feel like the next step might involve allowing "take-backs", that is hyperbole but still. In Monopoly you don't have to remind your opponents to collect rent.
I also want to make a disclaimer that although I am spike-y in nature, I am not a jerk and I don't think I make games unfun for my opponents. I take my losses in stride most of the time, but I have literally played dozens of games where I had to repeatedly tell my opponent that I am losing life every turn due to their Curse of the Pierced Heart, or that their Shrine of Loyal Legions gets a counter because they cast a white spell etc. ad nauseum. Those losses are very unfun for me not just because I lost, but because it felt like my honesty had a hand in my losing.
This is a change in the direction you are hoping for. Previously, EVERY TOURNAMENT WAS LIKE REGULAR REL. You had to remind your opponent of every trigger, or you got a penalty. Now, in Competitive tournaments, you don't have to do so any more. So, even though you didn't get your entire wish, you got half of it.
If you sanctioned Regular REL tournaments before, nothing has changed.