- Registered User
Member for 9 years, 8 months, and 5 days
Last active Sun, Dec, 4 2016 17:01:33
- 26 Followers
- 7,097 Total Posts
- 376 Thanks
Mar 26, 2016parinoid posted a message on Updated - Did Wizards hint at Emrakul or Marit Lage on Innistrad in 2012?You may be right, and it would make sense to continue the story by answering the mystery of where she went when she left Kozi and Ula to have their fun.Posted in: Speculation
Jan 26, 2015From the section on Game Rule Violations:Posted in: Magic Rulings ArchivesQuote from IPG »An error that an opponent has no opportunity to verify the legality of should have its penalty upgraded. These errors involve misplaying hidden information, such as the morph ability or failing to reveal a card to prove that a choice made was a legal one. If the information was ever in a position where opponents had the opportunity to verify the legality (such as on top of the library, as the only card in hand, or on the battlefield), do not upgrade the penalty and reveal the information if possible.
Since the card was on top of the library before it was drawn, it was in a position where the opponent could verify the information (in this case, by pointing out that it should be revealed). The solution is to reveal the card if possible (in addition to the warning).
Oct 19, 2014parinoid posted a message on How many times am I obligated to inform them they gave me too much money!Moved to market Street.Posted in: Store Discussion
Sep 9, 2014parinoid posted a message on What is an "action"? Regarding Selvala, Explorer ReturnedThis thread has drifted a bit too far into arguing semantics.Posted in: Magic Rulings Archives
If you're concerned about clarifications to rules and/or templating, please direct your question to Wizards' Rules Theory and Templating forum on the mothership.
Aug 9, 2014parinoid posted a message on Zombie Apocalypse, Grimgrin, and summoning sicknessYes, sommoning sickness applies to an creature that you have no continuously controlled since the start of your most recent turn.Posted in: Magic Rulings Archives
That said, you can still activate Grimgrin's ability to untap him right away. The only things that summoning sickness stops are: attacking, and activating abilities with the or symbols.
Grimgrin's ability has neither of those sybbols in it, so it is unaffected by him having summoning sicness.
Aug 2, 2014parinoid posted a message on IRL Magic, delcared second place in FNM... can I get your opinion?Posted in: Magic GeneralQuote from FuriousMarsupial »I'm focused on a different aspect of this story:
This tournament was a three-round swiss with no top 8 cut, yet prizes were still awarded in 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and so on placings? That's ridiculous. A three-round swiss FNM tournament should have set prizes for different win/loss ratios, regardless of tiebreakers. Attempting to actually determine a first place winner out of a large number of players with only three rounds is absurd.
I don't think the described situation would count as having 'a large number of players'. It sounds like it was just a 9 or 11-player event.
Aug 2, 2014As has been stated: even if altered, gold-boardered cards are not tournament-legal. What stops them is the thing that stops anyone from breaking any of the rules, with the added benifit of a near-garunteed DQ when you get caught.Posted in: Magic Rulings Archives
That said, why the rules are the way they are is beyond the scope of this forum.
If you wish to discuss the reasons behind the rules, please direct your concerns to the Rules Theory and Templating forum on the mothership.
Thread locked before it goes off-topic.
Jul 13, 2014Yes, you can choose to put both into your graveyard.Posted in: Magic Rulings Archives
State-based actions are applied simultaneously and you have two asking you to "choose one and put the rest into your graveyard" (704.5j-k)
If you choose a different one for each SBA, you will end up putting all of them into your graveyard.
Jul 12, 2014parinoid posted a message on I'm starting -= WOTC Gatherer Enhanced =- community theme project for http://gatherer.wizards.com/, I need help and ideas.Moved to MTG Software.Posted in: Magic Software
Jul 8, 2014parinoid posted a message on Hypothetical question - Planeswalker with 0 printed loyaltyPlease keep this sort of thing to Custom Card Creation.Posted in: Magic Rulings Archives
Jul 2, 2014Posted in: Modern Archives - EstablishedQuote from MostlyLost »I thought about it right away but I feel like it's a bit too fragile. If I tap Pod to get a 4-drop, I don't want it to get bolted. It's a shame, because I'd totally run it if it was, say, 3/4, because i THINK it wins by itself: activate Pod - ability triggers - sac Ogre - both abilities go on stack - find Kiki and conscripts and win.
For real though...If wizards is actually designing for Modern like they say they are, they need to make less boltable creatures... /rant
Going to shoot this down because it doesn't work.
In order for him to trigger, he needs to be on the battlefield when the ability is considered activated. That only happens after costs are paid. So if you sac'd him to the pod, he won't be around at the appropriate time to trigger.
Jun 22, 2014In-case you were asking about the 'can't be blocked by X' part of protection, it doesn't apply here since the creature has already been blocked.Posted in: Magic Rulings Archives
Giving a creature any sort of ability that affects blocking after blockers have already been declared doesn't undo the block(s) that were made. This goes for anything from Flying to Intimidate and in this case, protection.
Jun 1, 2014At competitive events, the following is what a judge references when assessing a missed trigger:Posted in: Magic Rulings Archives
If the triggered ability specifies a default action associated with a choice made by the controller (usually "If you don't ..." or "... unless"), resolve it choosing the default option. If the triggered ability is a delayed triggered ability that changes the zone of an object, resolve it. For these two types of abilities, the opponent chooses whether to resolve the ability the next time a player would get priority or when a player would get priority at the start of the next phase. These abilities do not expire and should be remedied no matter how much time has passed since they should have triggered.
If the triggered ability creates an effect whose duration has already expired or the ability was missed prior to the current phase in the previous player's turn, instruct the players to continue playing.
If the triggered ability isn’t covered by the previous two paragraphs, the opponent chooses whether the triggered
ability is added to the stack. If it is, it’s inserted at the appropriate place on the stack if possible or on the bottom of the stack. No player may make choices involving objects that were not in the appropriate zone or zones when the ability should have triggered. For example, if the ability instructs a player to sacrifice a creature, that player can't sacrifice a creature that wasn't on the battlefield when the ability should have triggered.
Since the trigger in question is not one of the two mentioned in the opening paragraphs, the opponent should be given the choice of having the trigger put on the stack.
At Regular, it's mostly the same:
A player forgets a triggered ability (one that uses the words “when,” “whenever,” or “at” usually at the start of the ability's text).
These abilities are considered missed if the player did not acknowledge them in any way at the point that it required choices or had a visible in-game effect. If the ability includes the word “may,” assume the player chose not to perform it. Otherwise, add it to the stack now unless it happened so long ago that you think it would be very disruptive to the game - don’t add the ability to the stack if significant decisions having been made based on the effect not happening! Unlike other game rule errors (which must be pointed out), players are never required to point out their opponent’s missed triggered abilities, although they may do so.
May 27, 2014Just as there is no limit to the number of cards you can play from your hand, there is also no limit to the number of cards you can play per turn through Future sight's ability.Posted in: Magic Rulings Archives
It is quite literal in what it does. You play with the top card of your library revealed and you may play the top card of your library.
If you play the top card, it stops being on top of your library and a new card is now revealed. Future Sight still says that you may play the top card of your library, so you can play that one too, if you are able to pay the costs (or haven't played a land, if it's a land).
May 26, 2014parinoid posted a message on Worth holding onto Vendilion Clique and Sword of Fire and Ice? And should I hold onto box of Innistrad?Moved to Market Street Café.Posted in: Market Street Café
May 26, 2014Posted in: Magic GeneralQuote from starchild »Angus Mackenzie follows the path starting with white, then blue and green. Maybe it was like this before. The wheel starts at white going to the right. So if a card is not white but has blue and other colors, the card starts with the blue mana symbol followed by the next one nearest to the right and the next one.
Diamond Faerie is maybe the new way to do it, making the colors follow in order so they are all neighbours. GWU instead of the old way which would have benn WUG?
Legends was a loooong time ago. Many things have changed since then.
They've even moved around the symbols in the oracle text of those cards (Adun Oakenshield, and Chromium for example) and even corrected the order in reprints (Sol'kanar the Swamp King was RBU in Legends and UBR in Time Spiral).
May 26, 2014Posted in: Magic GeneralQuote from starchild »
Thanks but...The Mimeoplasmis GUB GUB, should it not be UBG UBG by the manawheel at least it is not shown as BUG BUG. This is a little confusing as Maelstrom Wanderer is URG URG correct by the mana wheel, where The Mimeoplasm the mana symbols is not given in the correct order by the wheel.
GUB still follows the colour wheel order, Blue comes between Green and Black when starting at Green and moving clockwise around the wheel.
The wedges follow a pattern in much the same way as the shards do, each wedge is defined by a single colour and it's enemy pair. The symbols are ordered such that the single colour comes first, followed by the pair in colour wheel order.
To see the pattern in action, simple look to the planar chaos dragons:
Oros, the Avenger (WBR)
Intet, the Dreamer (URG)
Teneb, the Harvester (BGW)
Numot, the Devastator (RWU)
Vorosh, the Hunter (GUB)
Note that this is how the symbols are ordered on a card, you can type it however you want. When describing a deck, people usually use the most common colour(s) first. ie: Bg, or UWr.
May 24, 2014The point is that it doesn't matter who casts the spell, what matters is who controls the storm/pool.Posted in: Magic Rulings Archives
Your statement tied the caster of the spell to the control of the trigger when they are completely independent.
Especially pertinent is that in a multiplayer game, it is more likely than not that the player casting the spell will not be the ability's controller.
Even though you meant what I said, the OP was clearly confused.
May 24, 2014Posted in: Magic Rulings ArchivesQuote from Thylakaleo »Basically, the way this will work is that whoever controls the abilities (In almost every case the player casting the spell) gets to order them on the stack, and let them resolve. No matter what, the spell will be exiled.
Quote from PikauCelebrir »Quote from PlatnumxStatuS »Wait, so the player casting, not the controller of Possibility Storm/Knowledge Pool, orders the effect of Storm/Pool on the stack? I read in a judge's blog saying that the controller of the storm and pool orders it, not the person casting.
What you read is correct. A triggered ability is controlled by the person who controlls the card which triggered them and if more than one triggered ability from one player goes on the stack that player decides which goes first. If triggered abilities of muliple players go on the stack, the active player puts his triggers on the stack first, than the triggered abilities of the player to his left and so on.
These guys are both wrong.
A triggered ability (other than a delayed triggered ability) is controlled by the player who controlled its source when the ability triggered. If it had no controller, instead the owner of the object controls the ability.
If multiple triggered abilities would be put on the stack at the same time, they are placed in Active Player, Non-Active Player order (APNAP for short), as determined by who controls them. If a player controls multiple triggers that would be put on the stack at the same time, that player chooses the order.
112.8. The controller of an activated ability on the stack is the player who activated it. The controller of
a triggered ability on the stack (other than a delayed triggered ability) is the player who controlled the ability’s source when it triggered, or, if it had no controller, the player who owned the ability’s source when it triggered. To determine the controller of a delayed triggered ability, see rules 603.7d–f.
112.7. The source of an ability is the object that generated it. The source of an activated ability on the
stack is the object whose ability was activated. The source of a triggered ability (other than a delayed triggered ability) on the stack, or one that has triggered and is waiting to be put on the stack, is the object whose ability triggered. To determine the source of a delayed triggered ability, see rules 603.7d–f.
May 22, 2014parinoid posted a message on How do the wishes (Golden, Burning, Living, etc.) interact with cards from the Hero's Path?The simple answer is that they don't meet the rules definition of a traditional card, so they aren't traditional cards.Posted in: Magic Rulings Archives
They may be non-traditional cards, but you're specifically prohibited for wishing for those.
Quote from Comp. Rules »108.5. Nontraditional Magic cards can’t start the game in any zone other than the command zone (see rule 408). If an effect would bring a nontraditional Magic card into the game from outside the game, it doesn’t; that card remains outside the game.
The rules don't cover them specifically because when you play battle the horde/hydra/xenagos, you're not actually playing magic, you're playing a spin-off that uses similar rules. You can't play with them in a normal game of magicwithout introducing new rules for them (specifically overriding 108.5 above).
That being said, if you are playing a casual game with them the following would apply:
- They have no casting cost, so they cannot be cast without other means.
- They are not traditional cards, so they cannot be brought into the game via wishes. If you determine that you want to consider them non-traditional cards, they can be interacted with by things that specify doing something to 'cards', as long as they're already inside the game.
- If you start with one of the weapons, it will be a permanent and can be bounced or destroyed.
- If it is destroyed/exiled, it will be put into the appropriate zone.
May 21, 2014It sounds like it's from the Introductory Two-Player Set (Rivals Quick Start Set in the U.S.), it was a white-bordered set released as a quartet of preconstructed decks intended to introduce players to the game and was released July 1996.Posted in: Magic General
From the Magic Rarities page on the subject:
The contents of the Introductory Two-Player Set vary according to their edition and language. All versions with the exception of the Japanese release have in common, however, that the cards used to build the preconstructed decks in there are unique. They look similar to Fourth Edition cards, but feature a 1996 copyright date and in some cases reformatted text.
May 21, 2014Posted in: Magic GeneralQuote from DrWorm »
I guess I just don't see how getting some paper and a writing implement is all that much of a hassle or hardship. Then again, I'm an adult so I tend to be prepared for such needs.Quote from Taldier »
It makes more sense if you get in a situation where you and your friends want to play friendly games at a reasonably competitive level for playtesting, but simultaneously dont feel like getting out notebooks and wasting pages.
Being an adult has little to do with it. Most people's lives no longer revolve around pen and paper enough to include it in their everyday carry.
And even if you do have the p&p, playing revealed really does speed up testing when such effects are common; allowing for extra time to discuss what the optimal picks/plays are, or to simply punch out a quicker game (especially PuGs).
May 20, 2014Posted in: Magic GeneralQuote from Grand SuperiorI've always valued four mana Wrath effects as important safety valves for Standard and an important teaching tool for new players (specifically by teaching them how not to overextend).
I did a quick search on the printings of Wrath of God, Day of Judgment, and Supreme Verdict and it seems like every Standard has had at least one of them. It would be interesting to test the waters with a four mana Wrath-less Standard but I think it's too valuable to leave out.
There was a 3 month period of time when there was no 4 mana wrath in standard. When M10 was released it pushed out Tenth Edition, meaning that Standard then consisted of Lorwn/Shadowmoor block, Shards block, and M10. The best wraths at that time were Martial Coup and Hallowed Burial.
May 18, 2014Posted in: Magic Rulings ArchivesQuote from WarpI know this is going into the realm of nitpicking, but 110.6b isn't talking about replacement effects at all.
I asked about this on the wizards community forum, and the opinion was that it's not a replacement effect, it's simply a one-shot effect that instructs the player to do something.
As Hendrik pointed out, it is technically not a replacement effect.
It doesn't change the answer to the original question at all, but you are correct on that point.
That said, I think this has gone as far as it should.
May 13, 2014Posted in: Magic GeneralQuote from UiiIt's an odd question, but a friend of mine recently asked me to construct a deck containing the most attractive males in the card art. I probably need multiple opinions so I can get started, and hopefully the end result is still a functional deck. What are your thoughts?
Arena athlete, Hero of Iroas, Reverent Hunter and Akroan Conscriptor would definitely be up there.
May 11, 2014Sorrow's Path doesn't work that way.Posted in: Magic Rulings Archives
All it does is switch the creatures the two targeted creatures are blocking, you can't force an unblocked creature to become blocked with it.
If you use sorrow's path in that scenario, it will only realistically deal 2 damage to all your guys.
As an example of how it normally works: if you are attacking with creatures A1 and A2 and your opponent blocks A1 with B1 and A2 with B2, you can use sorrow's path to switch them so that B2 blocks A1 and B1 blocks A2.
In other words:
May 10, 2014The tiebreakers used by the software are as follows:Posted in: Magic Rulings Archives
1st - Match points
2nd - Opponents' Match Win Percentage
3rd - Game Win Precentage
4th - Opponents' Game Win Percentage.
and finally, the secret 5th tiebreaker - The order entered into the event.
I am not even kidding, the software needs some way to order the list and that's a convenient stat that is unique for each player.
There are no other tiebreakers that can be used. On the awkward occasions when it does happen, splitting 1st and 2nd between the players is a good idea. Alternatively, running enough rounds so that there is an outright winner avoids the possibility all together (the number of rounds per player turnout that is likely to give that is listed in the MTR).
But that's all up to the TO.
May 8, 2014This thread was originally about Ravnica 1.0. Given the recent revisit, this thread is woefully out of date for a modern-day discussion.Posted in: Magic General
If anyone wishes to restart the conversation, please make a new thread to do so.
May 8, 2014witchstalkerPosted in: Magic Rulings Archives
Yes, your opponent can counter your witchstalker.
Unless a card says, or it doesn't make sense otherwise, abilities are only active when the card is on the battlefield. Everywhere else, they don't do anything.
This is the case with hexproof, it is only relevant when the card is on the battlefield. While the card is on the stack (ie: just after you've cast it and before it has resolved), it doesn't have any effect.
May 8, 2014Protection means 'this permanent can't be:Posted in: Magic Rulings Archives
Enchanted or equipped,
By objects with the named quality.'
Do note that this is not complete immunity, something that does none of those things will still affect it. damnation for example.
A black creature cannot block a creature with protection from black.
May 6, 2014parinoid posted a message on Fingas on tha Triggers Emrakul and graveyard jauntObjects on the stack resolve one at a time, in first-in last-out order.Posted in: Magic Rulings Archives
When One with nothing resolves and you discard Emrakul, it's ability triggers and is placed on the top of the stack, above the tutor.
This means Emrakul's trigger must resolve before the tutor can, 'making the whole play useless' as you put it.
May 6, 2014parinoid posted a message on Stores incorrectly handling Limited and the God packsPosted in: Magic GeneralQuote from Sam I amQuote from LynnisMaybe I just don't have enough of a money making mentality to be a store owner, but to me, the God pack creates a nice experience for a player that visits your store and I am not sure why it is such a hassle to just give them a pack at no charge and continue with your draft. You preserve their moment, and come out looking like a great owner for a price of next to nothing.
It's shortsighted of you to only consider the experience of the person who opened the "god pack"
The reason why an owner might want to force you to play out the draft is so that you don't have a piss-poor experience for the other 7 drafters who don't get to complete a draft.
There's no money incentive for the owner either way.
Despite it not being the topic of the post you're responding to, your comment shows a lack of understanding of how dropping from a draft works.
Even should a player drop from a draft, the remaining players still continue the draft without them.
If there was exactly 8 players, the event would continue to be sanctioned, because it started with at least 8 players.
One player simply gets a bye each round.
May 4, 2014Moved to Artwork, they usually know their stuff.Posted in: Artwork
From a layman perspective, It would depend on what preparation work they did before altering, if they put a clear coat over the top, and what you want the end result to be.
It will probably be nearly impossible to return the card to its original condition, the best hope you have is to have it re-altered to be more appealing.
May 4, 2014Glen Elendra LiegePosted in: Magic Rulings Archives
The biomancer's ability is a triggered ability and it's power is only checked on resolution.
By the time the ability resolves, the Liege's ability would have been in effect for quite a while.
(Indeed, the Leige's effect would've been in effect even before the the ability triggered!)
Sorry, I misremembered what Biomancer's text was. (grumblegrumblecardtagsgrumblegrumble)
Vorthos is correct, it's just two.
The biomancer's ability is a replacement effect, it's power is checked on the Liege's resolution.
May 3, 2014By the time the mongrel is dead, the wurm and the rootwalla would have already been discarded and their madness ability would have triggered and been placed on the stack (yes, madness is partially a triggered ability!).Posted in: Magic Rulings Archives
When it resolves, you will get the option to cast them for their madness cost, regardless of what has happened to whatever allowed you to discard them.
May 3, 2014Moved to Magic Rulings.Posted in: Magic Rulings Archives
Creatures with flying can only be blocked by creatures with reach, or other creatures with flying.
If you block a creature with flying with another creature with flying, there is nothing that allows to to also assign creatures without flying to block that creature.
Apr 29, 2014Posted in: Magic GeneralQuote from Mongers "n Deeds
If it's an unsanctioned event, it's the wild west. I played at a shop like this for a very brief period of time for FNMs, Pre-releases, etc. The last time I went to that shop, I went 3-0-1. The next best record was 3-1. Prizes went to 1st place only, and I was told I was 2nd because draws count as a loss. I then asked for the tiebreakers (since I'd beaten the 3-1 guy), and they looked at me funny like they didn't know what I was talking about. This is the same shop that "banned" Grapeshot because they thought Storm was unbeatable (I really pissed them off when I just showed up with Empty the Warrens instead just to make a point )
The moral of the story: Don't play at shops that don't know what they're doing.
If an event is run at a REL, then it's sanctioned. You can sanction at casual REL, which is basically anything goes, but almost anything with any kind of WotC support is at least regular.
An 'unsanctioned' prerelease would mean that they either signed up for a prerelease and didn't run it (and used the product for the other event), or they did run it, but implimented their own rules. Both are examples of tournament fraud.
Additionally, a store is not supposed to used the 'FNM' branding unless the event is a sanctioned FNM event. Using it implies that the event is being run at regular REL.
Apr 29, 2014Posted in: Magic General
This is completely untrue. All tournaments sanctioned at regular REL must follow the rules set out in the Comprehensive Rules and the Magic Tournament Rules.
Not doing so can be grounds for the removal of a TO's ability to sanction events.
@OP: You should report the TO to Wizards using their Customer Service page found here:
You will need to have (or sign up for) an account in order to lodge the complaint.
Apr 29, 2014Posted in: Magic GeneralQuote from Fluffy_BunnySimilarly I had a situation where at a regionals playing Rakdos back when Kamigawa and Rav were in Standard... my opponent managed to get 6 or 8 Jitte counters up and I was about to die but he is at 4 and has had to use Jitte counters for life for a few turns now. I draw my card... Flames of the Blood Hand... so I sigh put it in my hand that I was slowly building up... "swing with my dudes?" He makes some blocks and uses a counter for life gain which would end up keeping him at 4 or less... "response to the Jitte counters, Char?" now I can only assume that he thought this was my only play or he got nervous because this makes him decide he now has to use all of his Jitte counters instead of just 1.... so with all of his Jitte life on the stack "Flames of the Blood Hand you lose". All he had to do was only use as many counters as necessary per action and he would have been fine.
Unless he explicitly announced that he was putting them all on the stack at once, it should've been assumed (due to standard shortcuts) that he was letting each resolve before activating the next.
It's the good old, "'pump my shade for 4...', 'Shock it in response.'" scenario.
Quote from YoshimitsuDuring opponent's main 1
*taps mountain "Can I bolt you?"
"Well, I don't want to, but since you passed priority, it is now the combat step"
Yeah, that that doesn't work.
If you ask for priority and do nothing with it, your opponent just gets it back. This is covered my the MTR:
A player may not request priority and take no action with it. If a player decides he or she does not wish to do anything, the request is nullified and priority is returned to the player that originally had it.
Apr 29, 2014parinoid posted a message on Do booster packs ever contain two of the same card?It is one of the more common examples of an error pack. I played a 3xTheros draft just before the BotG release, where 2/3 of the packs had duplicate uncommons, so it's still a possibility.Posted in: Magic General
While players should technically call a judge when they open one, most people don't pay that close attention to commons until after they've already sorted them.
Apr 28, 2014Posted in: Magic GeneralQuote from MindStoneWell, Aurelia(/us) means "the golden one" in latin, so that ones also rather classical.
Indeed, to the point where it was the name of Julius Caesar's mother.
I can't think of MTG names showing up elsewhere without having alternate source materials.
Kamahl is a rather common name.
Jeska is an obvious shortening of Jessica.
Phage is a suffix denoting something that consumes (eats) something else.
Karona appears in many places and is pronounced similarly to Carona, which is an actual word.
Apr 28, 2014parinoid posted a message on Circumventing a bribery accusation when splitting gets toughPosted in: Magic Rulings ArchivesQuote from genini1In this case what you did was agree to split the booster box and then concede which is perfectly legal.
Good to know I wasn't doing anything illegal, then. Thanks for the help!
Not quite. If that clause is used, you drop from the tournament instead of playing the last round.
The difference being that since no match is played, your opponent doesn't get any points for beating you.
You could always negotiate to alter the prizes such that no matter who wins, you both get half. If they agree, you're free to concede to your opponent. The important thing is that the concession (ie. Planeswalker points) isn't given on the condition that your opponent agrees to the split.
Apr 27, 2014Posted in: Magic GeneralQuote from napadanhe didn't have any board wipes in hand, and he was killing prossh after I played him (which now that you mention it, that's probably why he lost that one) Maybe he isn't as good of a player as I was making him out to be. Still, it's hard to tell if the misplays are truly misplays or if it's because he's frustrated with losing/trying too hard to win.
He definitely should've waited for you to attack and possibly sacrifice some of the tokens. Hell, if you went for the stampede with Prossh out, he could've killed Prossh in response to effectively blank your play.
Apr 27, 2014The rules require shortcuts to have a definite end state. Without a defined end state, she hasn't proposed a shortcut, just speculated on the future.Posted in: Magic Rulings Archives
If she has previously performed the loop that match, and chose a number then, then it can be claimed that she's making the same amount of tokens as then and using the shortcut she did properly define previously. The clarification there could be as easy as "Same as last time?".
IMHO, without that sort of background, it's in the same vein as a player reveling cards from their hand to show they have the win next turn.
Sometimes the opponent has an answer and they need to play it out, sometimes the opponent scoops, and other times they bluff and ask for it to be played out anyway.
Apr 27, 2014Posted in: Magic GeneralQuote from napadan
Like I said he plays well... just it seems that I'm always one step ahead of him all the way. He plays something mean, I draw the answer for it. General is out? I snipe it. He's got me one turn from losing, I draw into a victory. Perfect example of that was me playing Prossh vs Oloro. He had 140 life, oloro, and had just played a serra's avatar. All I had was 31 0/1 kobolds cuz he kept sniping prossh and I wasn't drawing anything else. I was at like 14 life so next turn I was dead for sure. All I needed was a fatty so the overwhelming stampede in my had would be useful..... and I drew one. I had just enough mana for the 5/5 fatty I drew, the stampede, and gruul charm so he couldn't block the 155 dmg coming his way.
Games tend to go one of 3 ways: I have an answer to everything he does so his deck gets nowhere, his deck mana floods/screws him and I take an easy victory, or I come otta nowhere and win one turn before he would beat me. Very rarely does he win.
It's not the decks themselves cuz I'll take the losing deck and win with it next game.
I don't know what was in his hand, but Serra avatar is an exceptionally unimpressive play against an army of chump blockers. He wasn't hitting you for at least 16 turns, let alone killing you.
If he had a wrath, he should've used it. If he had removal, he should've tanked it.
When you say he kept sniping Prossh, do you mean he was killing it as soon as it entered, or was he waiting until you attacked to kill it?
Apr 27, 2014Posted in: Magic GeneralQuote from AlistairbodnSo she gets her box and, after opening everything, pulls a FOIL Ajani, a Mana Confluence, and some other mythic rare (maybe a god card). Naturally, she's super excited, and news travelled fast through the room at what she pulled. The guy who bought her box leaves his box and table, comes over, and tells her he wants all three of those cards as his picks for buying her box. Before she even starts deck constructing. In total, he snagged at least 100$ in those three cards.
She still got to play with them, right? Because they're part of her sealed pool, she would have needed them in order to play in the tournament...
Apr 26, 2014But that's in the context of reprinting into a standard legal set. Reprinting in supplemental stand-alone products does not affect format legality at all, so the only issue would be the impact on the secondary market...Posted in: Magic General
Apr 26, 2014Posted in: The Rumor MillQuote from tgdgc
If you choose to drop from the draft you will have to build a deck with the cards you drafted before dropping, you do not get the whole pack
Actually, you get to keep the whole pack and any unopened product you would have opened if you had participated all the way through. From the MTR section 2.10:
"Players who drop during limited events own the cards that they correctly have in their possession at that time. This includes any unopened or partially drafted boosters."
Apr 24, 2014Since there is also background story: characters, places, and events form part of WotC's IP.Posted in: Magic General
Therefore, card names that represent, reference, or depict these things would also be copyrighted.
Card names that depict more generic things (like fireball, or divination) would not.
Apr 22, 2014Posted in: Magic Rulings Archives
I write a computer program that randomizes a virtual "deck" composed of 20 Mountains and 40 Lightning Bolts.
- I stack the 20 Mountains on top of the deck and the program randomizes.
- I instruct the program to find the largest land clump in the deck.
- I repeat the first two steps 100 000 times, and find the average largest land clump.
All the same, except the input is a mana-weaved deck.
I believe that whether the deck was weaved will have zero impact on the final result.
I am absolutely willing to write this computer program if this would settle the debate. If it would not, I would find it very helpful to understanding your position if you could modify my proposal or write your own experiment that would express concrete, objectively observable results that would support your claim. I truly want to know if GAThraawn and I are wrong, and we have the tools to find out for sure.
I'm glad you're willing to put effort into this. Personally, I don't have the expertise or resources to create the necessary simulation myself. Just creating the randomization algorithm alone would take weeks of research for me to do.
I don't know your background with this sort of thing, but the most important thing you should ask yourself when creating a simulation is "Does this accurately describe reality?"
I can't answer that right now, because you haven't elaborated on what method you plan to use to randomize the virtual deck. Suffice to say, a simple RNG algorithm would not reflect what actually occurs when you shuffle a deck.
This can be seen by comparing a virtual deck randomized by an RNG algorithm to one that's been given a single iteration of a physical shuffle. You will see that with the virtual deck, any card can end up in any position but with the physical shuffle, there will be certain cards that cannot reach certain positions (eg. the top cards of a single mash shuffle cannot finish at the bottom of the deck).
For it to be accurate, it needs to mimic common shuffling methods. Good candidates are the mash shuffle and the riffle shuffle, which are specifically mentioned in the MTR.
Because physical shuffling is iterative, you need to be able to apply the method several times. Ideally, you should be able to record the data after each iteration (see below for why).
When recording data, too little is poison for good conclusions. You should record as much as reasonably possible! Especially if you're intending to thoroughly investigate the subject.
In this case, you should not just record the largest land clump, but the entire distribution of land and nonland clumps. That way you will have not just the largest value, but the mean, median, mode, lowest value, and other statistics that relate to the distribution of both halves of the deck.
Also, you should record the values for each step of the iterative process, so you can compare each iteration to both the original order of the deck, and to the same stage of the sister deck.
Apr 21, 2014Posted in: Magic Rulings Archives
This exactly. No matter how expert a person is, they can still make mistakes and should not be above reproach.
In this thread, we define "sufficiently random" as "a state where no player can have any information regarding the order or position of cards in any portion of the deck" (TR 3.9). Here is my understanding of this passage stated as plainly as possible:
- you mana weave a deck
- you shuffle it some number of times
- you draw two lands in a row off the top
- based on the above steps, you predict the chance of seeing a land (let's say you determine it's 37%, just as an example)
- you shuffle your deck one hundred times
- you draw two lands in a row off the top
- based on the above steps, you predict the chance of seeing a land (here, let's say you determine it's 38%)
If these two percentages are different, I believe you have "information regarding the order or position of cards" in the deck. Specifically, you have statistical "information" about how well-distributed ("position") the lands ("cards") are.
Hopefully, shuffling one hundred times is not necessary, but it is the responsibility of each player to shuffle until they have obliterated all statistical knowledge they have about the contents of their deck. If I see someone mana weaving, I can be certain they are either wasting tournament time by doing so, or else they will go on to shuffle few enough times that they have statistical knowledge about the contents of their deck. That's insufficient randomization.
You seem to have misunderstood my point.
What I've been trying to say is that the benefit from weaving is that a weaved deck will have less impact on the final result than a fully stacked deck.
That implies that it is harder for one to retain information about the relative position of cards if they weaved first, when compared to if they stacked it in a 20-40 fashion.
I don't understand how one would obtain percentages like what you've used, but in your examples the margin of error in the first example would be much larger than the margin of error in the second example. Certainly enough to overtake the difference between them.
Quote from GAThraawnQuote from parinoidyou don't state how 'having reason to believe that a shuffled deck looks different because of weaving' results in 'having information about the relative positions of cards in the deck'.
Surely this is true by definition? When I shuffle and present a deck (usually using at least 7 riffles, and a few overhand shuffles, so that the deck is sufficiently shuffled), I know nothing about the order of my deck, and have no reason to believe anything about the distribution.
If you have reason to believe your deck looks different, you have information about the relative position of the cards in it.
No, it isn't true by definition. Not unless you use a very strict interpretation of what having 'information about the position of cards' is.
Because the starting order of a deck influences the final result, any change in the initial order will naturally make the final result look different, given exactly identical shuffles.
While you may not have information on what that difference is, you can be certain that there is a difference.
The hole in the logic has to do with assuming all reasons and all differences necessitate knowledge about the position or order of cards in the deck. This is a false assumption.
Furthermore, this is at odds with your previous statement that weaving followed by sufficient randomization will not maintain that pattern at all, which I agree with. If you weave, and then shuffle enough that the order of the deck is randomized to the point that you have no knowledge about the distribution of cards, such as lands and nonlands, the weave had no effect, either positive or negative. But if you weave, then shuffle, and expect to still have reason to believe that your deck looks different as a result of the weave, then you have not shuffled to the point where the deck "does not maintain that pattern at all".
What if the difference is "The deck looks less like the initial order than if I hadn't weaved."?
Apr 21, 2014Posted in: Magic Rulings Archives
What knowledge or information are you claiming I lack?
Parinoid has invented a term "represents", as used in the phrase "some configurations more closely resemble (or represent, if you'd prefer) a randomized deck than others." This term is not used in mathematics when discussing random numbers, and this poster has not provided a rigorous definition of it, so it would be dangerous to give it any weight until one is provided.
It's used all the time in statistics, when considering if a sample accurately describes the population it comes from.
In this case, I'm stating that a deck with the lands interspersed evenly is more representative (ie. is a more typical example or specimen) of a deck that has been randomized through physical manipulation, than a deck where the lands are not interspersed, but all clumped in one section of the deck.
Note that I'm not claiming that it is the best example, just that it is a better one.
Furthermore, parinoid has claimed that it is unreasonable to truly randomize a deck in a timely manner, and accepts some lesser amount of shuffling as sufficiently random. However, as has been quoted in this thread, the rules require that you not have any information about the relative positions of any cards in the deck. If you have reason to believe that your shuffled deck looks different because of mana-weaving, you have information about the relative positions of cards in the deck.
What information do you claim they would have?
Keep in mind that I've been constantly referring to weaving followed by sufficient randomization, which will not maintain the original pattern at all.
It kind of plays into my question, but the premise and conclusion in the third sentence don't follow logically, because you don't state how 'having reason to believe that a shuffled deck looks different because of weaving' results in 'having information about the relative positions of cards in the deck'.
I thought you should know, since you went to the trouble of bolding it and everything.
So according to parinoid's logic, mana-weaving is always cheating, because, supposedly, true randomization is impossible. Unfortunately, according to this logic, it is also cheating to look at your deck, then shuffle and present it, which nearly every player does before nearly every game.
That's quite a leap. I fail to see how you've managed to show that a deck that is not truly random cannot meet the criteria of 'sufficiently random'.
And are you claiming that true randomness is obtainable through physical manipulation?
I personally believe that it IS reasonable to expect good shuffling from players that have good skill with their hands, but of course some players are slower shufflers than others. Players physically incapable of randomizing their deck should notify the Head Judge before a tournament starts and accommodations will be made for them if possible, however it is not the judges' responsibility to make such accommodations.
Was never in dispute, but good to know.
- To post a comment, please login or register a new account.