Many corporations have certification programs that require annual testing and preforming certain duties to maintain certification. These are often offered to individuals outside the corporation to allow them to demonstrate to prospective employers that they have a certain skill level.
This is no different than what WOTC does with the judge program & this allows TOs a certain level of security when hiring these certified judges. Would you claim that a TO is the employer of a food vendor that is at an event, or is that food vendor a independent contractor? Why would this be any different for judges?
However, decision of the judges was to end the game in a draw and get to the next round. Anything else is wasting time and gets nowhere.
If the rules dont cover this scenario, the only feasable decision of a judge would be to end the game in a draw, so it becomes a head-judge decision (and scenarios like this are rare enough to begin with).
Can a head judge determine the outcome of a game without issuing warning? Where is this covered in the MTR?
How could it be unsporting to not accept a non mandatory draw, not matter why the reasoning?
Also, doesn't asking for a draw or concession multiple times considered proposing collusion and cheating?
Since the ability does not target it will give the +2/+2 to the creature that is equipped with Jitte when the ability resolves.
However, this most likely does not mean that the newly equipped creature gets +6/+6. If a player takes multiple actions at the same time, like using 3 jitte abilities, the tournament rules assume the player is proposing a shortcut of, I activate this ability or spell, let is resolve and then active another ability or spell.
In the situation you described the opponent proposed a shortcut of giving +2/+2, letting it resolve and then repeating 2 more times. You can interrupt this at any point you choose, but your opponent will have the option of using any counters left on the jitte in response. This means that you will most likely only "steal" one activation.
It could work out the way you describe only if the opponent specifically mentions that they are retaining priority and putting 3 activations on the stack.
104.4b If a game that’s not using the limited range of influence option (including a two-player game) somehow enters a “loop” of mandatory actions, repeating a sequence of events with no way to stop, the game is a draw. Loops that contain an optional action don’t result in a draw
716.4. If a loop contains only mandatory actions, the game is a draw. (See rules 104.4b and 104.4f.)
Even though turns are progressing, could a judge or player claim that neither playing being able to take any actions is considered an infinite loop (same game state being reached every other turn), and per the rules above, the game would be a draw?
At competitive REL I have a shared fate in play, the game has gotten to the point where no player can win and there are no cards in any library. What happens? Do I have to accept a draw if I don't want to; could I just keep passing the turn and let the clock run out?
I played miracles for years (love the deck) and you can definitely build it without duals (only basics, no red splash). I would note that in regards to eldrazi (my current deck), miracle's is a really good match up. The games will feel interactive, but miracles will lose 80% - 90% of the time. (This depends on the miracles build, not sure if there is any super secret tech they are running against eldrazi yet)
Death & Taxes on the other hand is a very 50 - 50 matchup, but those games tend to be one sided, either D&T locks eldrazi off mana, or eldrazi is just bigger and badder.
Delver of secrets decks also tend to have little interaction on game 1, if eldrazi gets chalice of the void or thorn of amethyst out early. However post sideboard games against delver of secrets decks can get really grinding and I tend to enjoy them, having to play around daze, or smash to smithereens ect. There are also a bunch of different build options here and color options that you can test with. You could even start with a 2 color UR build so you are not as dual land dependent.
If the player just drops, how is that any different from the person lending the deck telling the player that they have to scoop if they play each other.
Which I thought would be considered improperly determining a winner?
Besides being a jerk, is there any rule in the IPG the would prevent someone from lending a deck to a friend and demanding it back if they paired against each other?
Would this result in the friend being dropped from the event since they do not show up and play the round?
If I am in a game where I have multiple fetch lands in play (polluted delta), and I want to activate all of them at once. I say something to the effect of "crack 3 fetches". Is this assumed to be a shortcut of activate one and resolve it, then activate the 2nd and resolve it, then the 3rd?
This is how I believe the MTR explains this, but I wanted to make sure that if I do this my opponent cannot flash in a Aven Mindcensor and potentially stop all 3 fetches.
Could you elaborate on how we can determine from the card that this is a triggered ability and not a triggered mana ability?
Is the only difference that one triggers from a mana ability? (Crypt Ghast vs. Savage Ventmaw)
If a card say it cannot be countered, like abrupt decay, would it still be countered by game rules.
Eg. If I attempt to abrupt decay a creature and my opponent casts vines of vastwood on the creature in response. Would decay still resolve since it was cast on a legal target?
Is it determined in the IPG that putting a random card back is minimal impact, or is this up to the judges discretion?
I would expect it has the potential to largely impact the game, potentially putting back a counter spell or removal spell that you previously had and could be relevant.
This is no different than what WOTC does with the judge program & this allows TOs a certain level of security when hiring these certified judges. Would you claim that a TO is the employer of a food vendor that is at an event, or is that food vendor a independent contractor? Why would this be any different for judges?
Can a head judge determine the outcome of a game without issuing warning? Where is this covered in the MTR?
Also, doesn't asking for a draw or concession multiple times considered proposing collusion and cheating?
However, this most likely does not mean that the newly equipped creature gets +6/+6. If a player takes multiple actions at the same time, like using 3 jitte abilities, the tournament rules assume the player is proposing a shortcut of, I activate this ability or spell, let is resolve and then active another ability or spell.
In the situation you described the opponent proposed a shortcut of giving +2/+2, letting it resolve and then repeating 2 more times. You can interrupt this at any point you choose, but your opponent will have the option of using any counters left on the jitte in response. This means that you will most likely only "steal" one activation.
It could work out the way you describe only if the opponent specifically mentions that they are retaining priority and putting 3 activations on the stack.
Even though turns are progressing, could a judge or player claim that neither playing being able to take any actions is considered an infinite loop (same game state being reached every other turn), and per the rules above, the game would be a draw?
Death & Taxes on the other hand is a very 50 - 50 matchup, but those games tend to be one sided, either D&T locks eldrazi off mana, or eldrazi is just bigger and badder.
Delver of secrets decks also tend to have little interaction on game 1, if eldrazi gets chalice of the void or thorn of amethyst out early. However post sideboard games against delver of secrets decks can get really grinding and I tend to enjoy them, having to play around daze, or smash to smithereens ect. There are also a bunch of different build options here and color options that you can test with. You could even start with a 2 color UR build so you are not as dual land dependent.
Which I thought would be considered improperly determining a winner?
OR that they aren't going to risk getting disqualified for lying to a judge.
Would this result in the friend being dropped from the event since they do not show up and play the round?
This is how I believe the MTR explains this, but I wanted to make sure that if I do this my opponent cannot flash in a Aven Mindcensor and potentially stop all 3 fetches.
Is the only difference that one triggers from a mana ability? (Crypt Ghast vs. Savage Ventmaw)
Thanks.
Thank you all for the responses.
Eg. If I attempt to abrupt decay a creature and my opponent casts vines of vastwood on the creature in response. Would decay still resolve since it was cast on a legal target?
I would expect it has the potential to largely impact the game, potentially putting back a counter spell or removal spell that you previously had and could be relevant.