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.
You are very correct. I forgot to acknowledge that it is true Competitive REL events are better now. I suppose I should take what I can get in stride, but most of the events I play are Regular REL where these "forgetting" situations are more common.
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.
I feel like his real issue is that the rules differ between the two RELs, and they didn't differ before. I could see someone taking the position that their most preferred outcome would be optional beneficial trigger pointing-out at all levels, but that consistent, forced-reminder rules would be better than inconsistent rules.
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.
Look at it this way if those games were on MTGO they would have a hard time missing those mandatory triggers.
I mean look at it this way if someone forgets to draw for his turn, you act like he should not be allowed to draw his card for the turn since he clearly forgot.
I mean it annoys me a bit when I remind my opponent about something that kills me but that's how Magic or any game goes.
Most games do not allow someone to forget a mandatory effect in the game.
Look at it this way if those games were on MTGO they would have a hard time missing those mandatory triggers.
I mean looking at it this way if someone forgets to draw for his turn, you act like he should not be allowed to draw his card for the turn since he clearly forgot.
I mean it annoys me a bit when I remind my opponent about something that kills me but that's how Magic or any game goes.
Most games do not allow someone to forget a mandatory effect in the game.
I know that while I am frustrated at having to point out to my opponent why I am losing, the reality is I know that if I were playing a better player the resulting loss would be the same.
I just think that the complexity of Magic means that remembering/managing your beneficial triggers is a skill. Completely forgetting and blowing past whatever is going on in the game state because you drew your sweet mythic rare or whatever should not be rewarded in my opinion. Now if your new and you do not know how things work when multiple things trigger at once, but you ask if it is possible to have a certain outcome or something along those lines, I am totally fine with that.
I don't really see a difference between "I should have remembered that my card is supposed to gain me 5 life because an artifact died and I wasn't paying attention." and "Oops I should have blocked differently because I didn't realize your guy had First Strike." Competitive Magic should be 1 game not one thing at Competitive REL and almost casual at Regular REL.
EDIT.
I also think there is a difference between a turn based action like Drawing a card during your draw step, and drawing a card from Howling Mine. I referenced Monopoly as an example of a game that punishes not paying attention to detail.
5.3. Unsporting Conduct —Improperly Determining a Winner
Definition A player uses or offers to use an outside-the-game method to determine the outcome of a game or match. Examples A. As time is called, two players about to draw roll a die to determine the winner.
B. A player offers to flip a coin to determine the winner of a match.
C. Two players arm wrestle to determine the winner of the match.
D. Two players play rock-paper-scissors to decide if they should play the match or draw. Philosophy Using a random method to determine a winner compromises the integrity of the tournament. :o:o:o:o
Matches that result in a draw due to time are expected to be reported as such and are not excluded from this penalty if the players use a random method to determine the outcome.
In most cases this penalty will be issued to both players, unless the other player calls over a judge as soon as the suggestion to randomly determine the winner is made.
Should we all start stacking our decks to just completely rule out this "Random" ?
5.3. Unsporting Conduct —Improperly Determining a Winner
Definition
A player uses or offers to use an outside-the-game method to determine the outcome of a game or match.
Examples
A. As time is called, two players about to draw roll a die to determine the winner.
B. A player offers to flip a coin to determine the winner of a match.
C. Two players arm wrestle to determine the winner of the match.
D. Two players play rock-paper-scissors to decide if they should play the match or draw.
Philosophy
Using a random method to determine a winner compromises the integrity of the tournament. :o:o:o:o
Matches that result in a draw due to time are expected to be reported as such and are not excluded from this penalty if the players use a random method to determine the outcome.
In most cases this penalty will be issued to both players, unless the other player calls over a judge as soon as the suggestion to randomly determine the winner is made.
Should we all start stacking our decks to just completely rule out this "Random" ?
As obnoxious as your formatting was, I'm guessing that you're just trolling and not really asking that question...
But in case you were actually confused, that rule has been in the IPG for as long as I can remember, and "randomly determining" refers to a random method other than playing a game of magic, such as flipping a coin or rolling a die or playing Bear Cowboy Ninja.
Competitive Magic should be 1 game not one thing at Competitive REL and almost casual at Regular REL.
The thing is, WotC's philosophy is that tournaments run at Regular REL aren't competative Magic; they are social events that offer relatively minor prizes.
I can understand your frustration with this. I also think that this should extend across all RELs and that tournaments are inherently competative but we don't get to determine the Organized Play philosophy, and -like it or not- OP has decided that Regular isn't a competative environment.
John Doe needs a Wurmcoil. The store owner is selling them for $15. But John Smith has one for trade. He trades his Wurmcoil for a Bladehold that the store owner sells for $20. That's $35 in income that the store owner lost. Now, multiply that by the 30 or so people that play at the LGS and you can see how much money he loses in an evening.
I know that while I am frustrated at having to point out to my opponent why I am losing, the reality is I know that if I were playing a better player the resulting loss would be the same.
I just think that the complexity of Magic means that remembering/managing your beneficial triggers is a skill. Completely forgetting and blowing past whatever is going on in the game state because you drew your sweet mythic rare or whatever should not be rewarded in my opinion. Now if your new and you do not know how things work when multiple things trigger at once, but you ask if it is possible to have a certain outcome or something along those lines, I am totally fine with that.
I don't really see a difference between "I should have remembered that my card is supposed to gain me 5 life because an artifact died and I wasn't paying attention." and "Oops I should have blocked differently because I didn't realize your guy had First Strike." Competitive Magic should be 1 game not one thing at Competitive REL and almost casual at Regular REL.
EDIT.
I also think there is a difference between a turn based action like Drawing a card during your draw step, and drawing a card from Howling Mine. I referenced Monopoly as an example of a game that punishes not paying attention to detail.
I think you may be missing the point here, WOTC wants casual players at REL events. If both players are tasked with keeping the game state proper and maintaining mandatory triggers, it prevents skilled players from simply winning by a greater familiarity with the rules and ability to track many things. It means you win on the skill of your plays alone. This is fair and sporting. The fact that you no longer need point them out in Prof and Comp is basically saying, you're in the big leagues, you can play a little rougher.
Moving this down to regular events would basically push away all but the determined newcomers. This is contrary to WOTC's vision for keeping Magic growing. What you are suggesting may help you feel better, but it does not make the gaming environment better.
I imagine this as if you allowed checking in Hockey down to Pee Wee Leagues and then mixed age groups up to the Pros... not pretty.
Should we all start stacking our decks to just completely rule out this "Random" ?
You are confusing Definition (which defines the infraction) with Philosophy (which talks a bit about the guiding principles behind the infraction). Reading the definition again should clear things up nicely.
You are confusing Definition (which defines the infraction) with Philosophy (which talks a bit about the guiding principles behind the infraction). Reading the definition again should clear things up nicely.
Papa funk, if you could address my previous question... Under the new IPG, if I witness someone "forgetting" a lapsing trigger at a time it benefits them, and I suspect potential abuse but do not feel that its clear enough to rise to the level of Cheating-Fraud... Previously I'd be able to issue a warning for missed trigger, so that any future similar situation could reference that warning for potential upgrade... Under the new IPG, am I not able to issue a warning because I wasn't supposed to interfere in the first place?
Papa funk, if you could address my previous question... Under the new IPG, if I witness someone "forgetting" a lapsing trigger at a time it benefits them, and I suspect potential abuse but do not feel that its clear enough to rise to the level of Cheating-Fraud... Previously I'd be able to issue a warning for missed trigger, so that any future similar situation could reference that warning for potential upgrade... Under the new IPG, am I not able to issue a warning because I wasn't supposed to interfere in the first place?
I think we addressed that on page one. If you don't feel that it rises to the clear cheating level, then keep an eye on them and see if there's a pattern. If you think there is enough to act on, pull them aside and investigate.
First of all, good job for doing those IPG Rules this way. They are rather well thought through, way, way more than they were before. I have some issues about this though.
1. Players do need to know what is beneficial and what is not, or otherwise they cannot take advantage of their opponent missing a trigger. You may say now that the rules are clear, but people will still try to cut corners to let people miss triggers that should not be missed, and this will lead to awkward spots. Will you just DQ those players if they say "They saw how the trigger was missed, but thought it was lapsing" when it wasn't lapsing? Or will you determine on a case to case basis, resulting in many players getting away in this newly created grey zone?
Both options seem rather...awkward.
2. I do not know how else to handle this, but it just cannot be right for the active player to not receive a warning by rushing hot-headed through his turn, gaining additional information on the way, if his opponent does not stop him in time. This puts quite another bit of burden on the players and actually really interrupts the flow of the game, because you have to clearly announce it every time during your opponents' upkeep to make sure he doesn't gain an advantage for free. It is not too hard to act retarded and just ALWAYS forget your opponents' Braids Trigger, just to gain the advantage to know what you draw for the turn. This just cannot be without penalty; this really hurts the honest players and also the flow of the game.
3. Have you ever considered actually asking Wizards for a real reason why they abandoned the "may"-route of things except for "it wasn't intuitive"? And also made it very clear that this causes all sorts of problems that would be absolutely avoidable if they just made those things all optional? You could even enforce a rule to force players at lower levels to remind each other of optional triggers, which would make everything 100% clear on all tournament levels, as well as being completely in line with the current philosophy. Life would be so much easier. It is not too late to just return to the "may"-Abilities...Of course it would look like a complete U-turn, but in fact it would be just the same as now just a lot clearer and also with a lot more flexibility (for example, Braids would just not be lapsing in your opponents turn, your opponent would have to remember it too -- like it is supposed to be because it is way too easy to take advantage out of skipping over it. Likewise, Verdant Force-effects could just be a may-effect, and if you forget it, its your fault.)
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Sometimes those with the most sin cast the first stones.
First of all, good job for doing those IPG Rules this way. They are rather well thought through, way, way more than they were before. I have some issues about this though.
1. Players do need to know what is beneficial and what is not, or otherwise they cannot take advantage of their opponent missing a trigger. You may say now that the rules are clear, but people will still try to cut corners to let people miss triggers that should not be missed, and this will lead to awkward spots. Will you just DQ those players if they say "They saw how the trigger was missed, but thought it was lapsing" when it wasn't lapsing? Or will you determine on a case to case basis, resulting in many players getting away in this newly created grey zone?
Both options seem rather...awkward.
2. I do not know how else to handle this, but it just cannot be right for the active player to not receive a warning by rushing hot-headed through his turn, gaining additional information on the way, if his opponent does not stop him in time. This puts quite another bit of burden on the players and actually really interrupts the flow of the game, because you have to clearly announce it every time during your opponents' upkeep to make sure he doesn't gain an advantage for free. It is not too hard to act retarded and just ALWAYS forget your opponents' Braids Trigger, just to gain the advantage to know what you draw for the turn. This just cannot be without penalty; this really hurts the honest players and also the flow of the game.
3. Have you ever considered actually asking Wizards for a real reason why they abandoned the "may"-route of things except for "it wasn't intuitive"? And also made it very clear that this causes all sorts of problems that would be absolutely avoidable if they just made those things all optional? You could even enforce a rule to force players at lower levels to remind each other of optional triggers, which would make everything 100% clear on all tournament levels, as well as being completely in line with the current philosophy. Life would be so much easier. It is not too late to just return to the "may"-Abilities...Of course it would look like a complete U-turn, but in fact it would be just the same as now just a lot clearer and also with a lot more flexibility (for example, Braids would just not be lapsing in your opponents turn, your opponent would have to remember it too -- like it is supposed to be because it is way too easy to take advantage out of skipping over it. Likewise, Verdant Force-effects could just be a may-effect, and if you forget it, its your fault.)
I'm not sure you have completely understood the new rules, as regards #1.
Here are the answers to your questions, as I understand it:
1. You are no longer required to point out your opponent's triggered abilities -- whether lapsing or not! If your opponent misses a triggered ability, it is entirely up to you whether or not you want to point it out. Whether it is lapsing or not is totally irrelevant to this. No one is going to get DQed for failing to remind their opponent of triggers because there is no longer a requirement to remind your opponent of triggers.
Quote from "Infraction Procedure Guide" »
Players are expected to remember their own triggers; intentionally ignoring one is considered Cheating — Fraud. However, remembering triggers that benefit you is a skill. Therefore, players are not required to point out missed triggers that they do not control, though they may do so if they wish.
2. If you want the opponent to stop on his upkeep for your Braids trigger, say, "Braids triggers." If he looks at a card after you say that, the judge should give him a "Looking at Extra Cards" penalty (usually a Warning), because he looked at an extra card. If the opponent is intentionally rushing in order to prevent you from pointing out the triggered ability before he looks at the card, then he is intentionally committing the offense of "Looking at Extra Cards." That is Cheating. We don't need a separate rule for that.
3. It is certainly too late to return to the "may" abilities. Lumberknot does not have a "may" ability. To change that would require giving it errata, which is not a good idea because then the card doesn't do what it says on the card. Same for Verdant Force, and all the other cards.
Now, R&D could decide to put "may" abilities on all cards, but that is really up to R&D, not the rules team.
You are very correct. I forgot to acknowledge that it is true Competitive REL events are better now. I suppose I should take what I can get in stride, but most of the events I play are Regular REL where these "forgetting" situations are more common.
I feel like his real issue is that the rules differ between the two RELs, and they didn't differ before. I could see someone taking the position that their most preferred outcome would be optional beneficial trigger pointing-out at all levels, but that consistent, forced-reminder rules would be better than inconsistent rules.
Look at it this way if those games were on MTGO they would have a hard time missing those mandatory triggers.
I mean look at it this way if someone forgets to draw for his turn, you act like he should not be allowed to draw his card for the turn since he clearly forgot.
I mean it annoys me a bit when I remind my opponent about something that kills me but that's how Magic or any game goes.
Most games do not allow someone to forget a mandatory effect in the game.
Feel free to bid on my cards here!
I know that while I am frustrated at having to point out to my opponent why I am losing, the reality is I know that if I were playing a better player the resulting loss would be the same.
I just think that the complexity of Magic means that remembering/managing your beneficial triggers is a skill. Completely forgetting and blowing past whatever is going on in the game state because you drew your sweet mythic rare or whatever should not be rewarded in my opinion. Now if your new and you do not know how things work when multiple things trigger at once, but you ask if it is possible to have a certain outcome or something along those lines, I am totally fine with that.
I don't really see a difference between "I should have remembered that my card is supposed to gain me 5 life because an artifact died and I wasn't paying attention." and "Oops I should have blocked differently because I didn't realize your guy had First Strike." Competitive Magic should be 1 game not one thing at Competitive REL and almost casual at Regular REL.
EDIT.
I also think there is a difference between a turn based action like Drawing a card during your draw step, and drawing a card from Howling Mine. I referenced Monopoly as an example of a game that punishes not paying attention to detail.
Definition
A player uses or offers to use an outside-the-game method to determine the outcome of a game or match.
Examples
A. As time is called, two players about to draw roll a die to determine the winner.
B. A player offers to flip a coin to determine the winner of a match.
C. Two players arm wrestle to determine the winner of the match.
D. Two players play rock-paper-scissors to decide if they should play the match or draw.
Philosophy
Using a random method to determine a winner compromises the integrity of the tournament. :o:o:o:o
Matches that result in a draw due to time are expected to be reported as such and are not excluded from this penalty if the players use a random method to determine the outcome.
In most cases this penalty will be issued to both players, unless the other player calls over a judge as soon as the suggestion to randomly determine the winner is made.
Should we all start stacking our decks to just completely rule out this "Random" ?
As obnoxious as your formatting was, I'm guessing that you're just trolling and not really asking that question...
But in case you were actually confused, that rule has been in the IPG for as long as I can remember, and "randomly determining" refers to a random method other than playing a game of magic, such as flipping a coin or rolling a die or playing Bear Cowboy Ninja.
The thing is, WotC's philosophy is that tournaments run at Regular REL aren't competative Magic; they are social events that offer relatively minor prizes.
I can understand your frustration with this. I also think that this should extend across all RELs and that tournaments are inherently competative but we don't get to determine the Organized Play philosophy, and -like it or not- OP has decided that Regular isn't a competative environment.
I think you may be missing the point here, WOTC wants casual players at REL events. If both players are tasked with keeping the game state proper and maintaining mandatory triggers, it prevents skilled players from simply winning by a greater familiarity with the rules and ability to track many things. It means you win on the skill of your plays alone. This is fair and sporting. The fact that you no longer need point them out in Prof and Comp is basically saying, you're in the big leagues, you can play a little rougher.
Moving this down to regular events would basically push away all but the determined newcomers. This is contrary to WOTC's vision for keeping Magic growing. What you are suggesting may help you feel better, but it does not make the gaming environment better.
I imagine this as if you allowed checking in Hockey down to Pee Wee Leagues and then mixed age groups up to the Pros... not pretty.
Random as in other than playing a game. Playing a game involves random events (card draws), but it is not a random method.
You are confusing Definition (which defines the infraction) with Philosophy (which talks a bit about the guiding principles behind the infraction). Reading the definition again should clear things up nicely.
Papa funk, if you could address my previous question... Under the new IPG, if I witness someone "forgetting" a lapsing trigger at a time it benefits them, and I suspect potential abuse but do not feel that its clear enough to rise to the level of Cheating-Fraud... Previously I'd be able to issue a warning for missed trigger, so that any future similar situation could reference that warning for potential upgrade... Under the new IPG, am I not able to issue a warning because I wasn't supposed to interfere in the first place?
I think we addressed that on page one. If you don't feel that it rises to the clear cheating level, then keep an eye on them and see if there's a pattern. If you think there is enough to act on, pull them aside and investigate.
- It all started because Wizards made the decision to remove 'may' from cards where it didn't make intuitive sense.
But I dont understand how this quote explains such a drastic change.
Noah Weil on scouting, an attorney from Seattle with 20 Pro Tour appearances.
1. Players do need to know what is beneficial and what is not, or otherwise they cannot take advantage of their opponent missing a trigger. You may say now that the rules are clear, but people will still try to cut corners to let people miss triggers that should not be missed, and this will lead to awkward spots. Will you just DQ those players if they say "They saw how the trigger was missed, but thought it was lapsing" when it wasn't lapsing? Or will you determine on a case to case basis, resulting in many players getting away in this newly created grey zone?
Both options seem rather...awkward.
2. I do not know how else to handle this, but it just cannot be right for the active player to not receive a warning by rushing hot-headed through his turn, gaining additional information on the way, if his opponent does not stop him in time. This puts quite another bit of burden on the players and actually really interrupts the flow of the game, because you have to clearly announce it every time during your opponents' upkeep to make sure he doesn't gain an advantage for free. It is not too hard to act retarded and just ALWAYS forget your opponents' Braids Trigger, just to gain the advantage to know what you draw for the turn. This just cannot be without penalty; this really hurts the honest players and also the flow of the game.
3. Have you ever considered actually asking Wizards for a real reason why they abandoned the "may"-route of things except for "it wasn't intuitive"? And also made it very clear that this causes all sorts of problems that would be absolutely avoidable if they just made those things all optional? You could even enforce a rule to force players at lower levels to remind each other of optional triggers, which would make everything 100% clear on all tournament levels, as well as being completely in line with the current philosophy. Life would be so much easier. It is not too late to just return to the "may"-Abilities...Of course it would look like a complete U-turn, but in fact it would be just the same as now just a lot clearer and also with a lot more flexibility (for example, Braids would just not be lapsing in your opponents turn, your opponent would have to remember it too -- like it is supposed to be because it is way too easy to take advantage out of skipping over it. Likewise, Verdant Force-effects could just be a may-effect, and if you forget it, its your fault.)
Here are the answers to your questions, as I understand it:
1. You are no longer required to point out your opponent's triggered abilities -- whether lapsing or not! If your opponent misses a triggered ability, it is entirely up to you whether or not you want to point it out. Whether it is lapsing or not is totally irrelevant to this. No one is going to get DQed for failing to remind their opponent of triggers because there is no longer a requirement to remind your opponent of triggers.
2. If you want the opponent to stop on his upkeep for your Braids trigger, say, "Braids triggers." If he looks at a card after you say that, the judge should give him a "Looking at Extra Cards" penalty (usually a Warning), because he looked at an extra card. If the opponent is intentionally rushing in order to prevent you from pointing out the triggered ability before he looks at the card, then he is intentionally committing the offense of "Looking at Extra Cards." That is Cheating. We don't need a separate rule for that.
3. It is certainly too late to return to the "may" abilities. Lumberknot does not have a "may" ability. To change that would require giving it errata, which is not a good idea because then the card doesn't do what it says on the card. Same for Verdant Force, and all the other cards.
Now, R&D could decide to put "may" abilities on all cards, but that is really up to R&D, not the rules team.