Does this fall into the reworking of the trigger ruling because this isn't a may trigger, how can it be missed?
Human beings are not perfect so even triggers that are non optional will be forgotten. In both competitive and regular REL you will generally add the trigger to the stack and at competitive give the player a warning. At regular REL you would go by the JAR which says "add it to the stack now unless it happened so long ago that you think it would be very disruptive
to the game".
At competitive REL you would allow the player who doesn't control the trigger to decide to resolve the ability immediately or at the beginning of the next phase, while at a regular REL it is always resolved immediately.
If the ability is a may ability then it is forgotten when the "player controlling the ability doesn’t demonstrate awareness of the trigger’s existence the first time that it would affect the game in a visible fashion". The only difference is that a may ability will not be added to the stack and is simply considered forgotten and at competitive REL a warning will be issued.
There are situations in which a non-optional trigger won't be added to the stack but those will most always end up being judge calls based on the how far the game state has progressed etc, and are not worth trying to discuss further, but you should be aware that they may come up in tournament play.
At FNM, you get leniency, but at Comp REL, once you let that angel hit the board, you've missed the trigger. The trigger would resolve before the spell that caused said trigger.
This is not 100% accurate. At an FNM you should be allowed to to resolve the trigger since at the JAR says you can "unless it happened so long ago that you think it would be very disruptive to the game". In this case no additional decisions have been made based on the trigger having been missed so it would be added to the stack at that point.
At a competitive level you would definitely want to get a judge involved to help straighten things out. But if your opponent waited for you to respond to the Angel and you said something along the lines of "it resolves" or "yep" etc. Then it would most likely be evidence that you missed the trigger.
However if your opponent simply played the angel, said "targeting tusk" and went to grab a beast token this would most likely be considered shortcutting in which case you should be able to back the game up to the point you wanted to respond adding the trigger to the stack.
This is just based on the information provided and a judge would investigate and get it straightened out based on additional info to make sure the right call was made.
Intentionally missing a trigger that would be considered detrimental like the one from Boros Reckoner that would kill you would fall under cheating and would most likely end up in a dq. It is both players responsibility to try and remember each and every trigger. Sometimes people miss them and the new missed trigger rules reflect that a bit better, but you can still not intentionally do so to gain an advantage.
You can if the tournament doesn't use decklists and the head judge allows you to do so. In most regular REL sealed tournaments you are permitted to alter your deck between games and matches.
Without the use of decklists can the Head Judge even choose to try and enforce playing the same list from round to round. There is basically no way to determine if a player is changing their list barring a complete and utter change and even then its one players word against another which seems like a bad idea.
I realize the Head Judge has a ton of discretion available to them but is there a rule that would support this as well because I was under the impression that if the Head Judge decides to not use decklists he/she is effectively giving permission for you to alter your deck between rounds.
Just to clarify for my own sake as well. The warning for slow play was not warranted specifically because so long as the combo player is working towards the goal of completing the combo and taking actions that progress the game in a timely fashion then there is no problem.
Even so if the OP was taking too long between the steps of the combo he should be asked to play faster by the judge/TO first to let him know that his pace is unsatisfactory and if the OP did nothing to change his pace a penatly and eventually a game loss could be assessed.
yes, when dimir doppelganger references itself in the ability it is really just saying "this card" so necrotic ooze would have that ability but it would reference itself.
When you use the ability on necrotic ooze it would function just like the doppelganger becoming an exact copy of the exiled card. The only activated ability it would have, are any the copied card has and the one granted by the ability itself.
Yes. In order for the creature to resolve both players must pass priority. Once that is done then both players must again pass priority in succession for the game to advance to the cleanup step. When you get priority you will have the opportunity to cast your searing spear.
Tournament Error (TE) - Deck/Deck List Problem (DDLP) - Game Loss (GL) - Player had 14 card sideboard, missing card replaced.
Sounds about right to me. For everyone claiming "there's no room for abuse" you're forgetting that there is. I could present a 15 card sideboard, while my deck contained 59 cards. Not the biggest abuse ever, but still abusive. Or I could "side" in something from outside the game when I see who I'm playing each round. Also, the OP had a chance to avoid a game loss by bringing the error to a judges attention before he could potentially abuse the error.
A simple pile shuffle, along with a count of the sideboard would have brought this to your attention, and given you the chance to see if the card might have been turned in, or to see if it could be replaced. Maybe you'll get a game loss for tardiness, or maybe the head judge will grant you a time extension, to see if you can replace the missing card.
We don't issue penalties just because you messed up, we also do it as a deterrent to others, and what deterrent is there if players can just claim "well, isn't a basic land penalty enough?" Take the game loss like a champ, learn from it, and move on.
I still don't agree with this. The op never stated that decks had been presented for their second game thus it cannot be assumed that he wouldn't have called the judge, just that during sideboarding a judge came over and checked the decks.
If you find that all cards present are on the registered list, except the one missing, and that no additional cards are being stored with the sideboard/deck then I see no reason that the sections of the IPG that H1jAck and myself have pointed out would not apply.
Specifically the fact that the OP registered 15 cards for his sideboard and assuming no obvious indications of abuse (the aforementioned additional cards stored with the sb) then it is reasonable to assume the card has become lost thus falling under:
Sideboards are considered to be a part of the deck for the purpose of this infraction. If sideboard cards are lost, make a note of this, but issue no penalty.
And then being resolved by the steps of my last post.
I would like to additionally point out that the full remedy to this situation should involve a few steps.
1. During the deck check if you determine that a sideboard card is missing then you should determine which card it is.
2. The player should be allowed to try and locate the registered card or an identical replacement.
3. If the original or a replacement cannot be found then the player will be required to replace it with a basic land.
All of this is can be found in the additional remedy area of the guide posted by H1jAck. Relevant text posted below for clarity.
Remove any cards from the deck that are illegal for the format or violate the maximum number allowed, fix any failures to de-sideboard, restore any missing cards if they (or identical replacements) can be located, then alter the decklist to reflect the remaining deck. If the remaining deck has too few cards, add basic lands of the player’s choice to reach the minimum number.
**Regarding the penalty I think it was erroneous based on the information provided by the OP**
if possible you want to slow roll your colonnades to protect them from spreading seas or tec edges since they don't usually come online until much later in the game. Halimar depths, refuge and even playing a glacial fortress out first tapped is generally a better play. Obviously if you have no other land you don't miss a land drop in order to "protect" the colonnade but it is one of your win conditions and if you can protect it then I don't see any reason not to.
Also on a slightly different variation I would say if your opening hand had colonnade and island regardless of whether or not you have a turn two play you would open with colonnade and then play the island so that you are at least "representing" a counter.
There was a deck that was in the top of a star city tournament recently that featured deny reality and sedraxis specter with vengevines and sarkhan the mad. I for the life of me cant remember what tournament it was and haven't been able to find a deck list. It would be tremendously helpful if someone could link the decklist for me or get me pointed in the right direction to find it.
I have recently cut Jace's Ingenuity from the main and moved it to the side board. I run with a set of Wall of Omens and 5 Jace's as well as 2 Sea Gate Oracles which during any match that isn't the mirror is more than enough card draw/sifting. With Sun Titan interacting with baby jace, walls and oracles as well as having two fetches to keep me shuffling away what I don't want there are very few times where I have been low on cards where I couldn't recover without the ingenuity.
I agree that it is great in the mirror or pseudo mirrors (esper and superfriends) but if your meta is like mine and more aggro and combo then it makes more sense to have it relegated to the side board.
Lotus cobra would add some good recovery synergy and some early game ramp but that doesn't feel like it fits with what the deck wants to do. You really want to tap out on turn two to drop your ascension or howling mine to start developing your late game or filling up your hand respectively. And other than the early ramp its not particularly useful. The idea behind casting realm razer is to seal up a winning board position. You know when its coming and can keep a land or two in hand to reset after realm razer plus with the extra card draw you will keep getting your land drops.
If you disagree I would be curious what uses you think it has and what you would take out to make room for it. I would assume that if your were going to add the cobra it would have to be a 4-of? Maybe a 3-of?
Human beings are not perfect so even triggers that are non optional will be forgotten. In both competitive and regular REL you will generally add the trigger to the stack and at competitive give the player a warning. At regular REL you would go by the JAR which says "add it to the stack now unless it happened so long ago that you think it would be very disruptive
to the game".
At competitive REL you would allow the player who doesn't control the trigger to decide to resolve the ability immediately or at the beginning of the next phase, while at a regular REL it is always resolved immediately.
If the ability is a may ability then it is forgotten when the "player controlling the ability doesn’t demonstrate awareness of the trigger’s existence the first time that it would affect the game in a visible fashion". The only difference is that a may ability will not be added to the stack and is simply considered forgotten and at competitive REL a warning will be issued.
There are situations in which a non-optional trigger won't be added to the stack but those will most always end up being judge calls based on the how far the game state has progressed etc, and are not worth trying to discuss further, but you should be aware that they may come up in tournament play.
This is not 100% accurate. At an FNM you should be allowed to to resolve the trigger since at the JAR says you can "unless it happened so long ago that you think it would be very disruptive to the game". In this case no additional decisions have been made based on the trigger having been missed so it would be added to the stack at that point.
At a competitive level you would definitely want to get a judge involved to help straighten things out. But if your opponent waited for you to respond to the Angel and you said something along the lines of "it resolves" or "yep" etc. Then it would most likely be evidence that you missed the trigger.
However if your opponent simply played the angel, said "targeting tusk" and went to grab a beast token this would most likely be considered shortcutting in which case you should be able to back the game up to the point you wanted to respond adding the trigger to the stack.
This is just based on the information provided and a judge would investigate and get it straightened out based on additional info to make sure the right call was made.
Without the use of decklists can the Head Judge even choose to try and enforce playing the same list from round to round. There is basically no way to determine if a player is changing their list barring a complete and utter change and even then its one players word against another which seems like a bad idea.
I realize the Head Judge has a ton of discretion available to them but is there a rule that would support this as well because I was under the impression that if the Head Judge decides to not use decklists he/she is effectively giving permission for you to alter your deck between rounds.
"When Endless Horizons enters the battlefield, search your library for any number of Plains cards and exile them. Then shuffle your library.
At the beginning of your upkeep, you may put a card you own exiled with Endless Horizons into your hand."
Because you have to "own" the card you that would go back to your hand, the answer to #1 and #2 is no.
**Dominus of fealty lets you gain "control" of a permanent but you can never "own" your opponents cards.**
Even so if the OP was taking too long between the steps of the combo he should be asked to play faster by the judge/TO first to let him know that his pace is unsatisfactory and if the OP did nothing to change his pace a penatly and eventually a game loss could be assessed.
Is my understanding of this situation correct?
When you use the ability on necrotic ooze it would function just like the doppelganger becoming an exact copy of the exiled card. The only activated ability it would have, are any the copied card has and the one granted by the ability itself.
I still don't agree with this. The op never stated that decks had been presented for their second game thus it cannot be assumed that he wouldn't have called the judge, just that during sideboarding a judge came over and checked the decks.
If you find that all cards present are on the registered list, except the one missing, and that no additional cards are being stored with the sideboard/deck then I see no reason that the sections of the IPG that H1jAck and myself have pointed out would not apply.
Specifically the fact that the OP registered 15 cards for his sideboard and assuming no obvious indications of abuse (the aforementioned additional cards stored with the sb) then it is reasonable to assume the card has become lost thus falling under:
Sideboards are considered to be a part of the deck for the purpose of this infraction. If sideboard cards are lost, make a note of this, but issue no penalty.
And then being resolved by the steps of my last post.
1. During the deck check if you determine that a sideboard card is missing then you should determine which card it is.
2. The player should be allowed to try and locate the registered card or an identical replacement.
3. If the original or a replacement cannot be found then the player will be required to replace it with a basic land.
All of this is can be found in the additional remedy area of the guide posted by H1jAck. Relevant text posted below for clarity.
Remove any cards from the deck that are illegal for the format or violate the maximum number allowed, fix any failures to de-sideboard, restore any missing cards if they (or identical replacements) can be located, then alter the decklist to reflect the remaining deck. If the remaining deck has too few cards, add basic lands of the player’s choice to reach the minimum number.
**Regarding the penalty I think it was erroneous based on the information provided by the OP**
Also on a slightly different variation I would say if your opening hand had colonnade and island regardless of whether or not you have a turn two play you would open with colonnade and then play the island so that you are at least "representing" a counter.
Question answered, thread closed.
Thanks in advance!!
I agree that it is great in the mirror or pseudo mirrors (esper and superfriends) but if your meta is like mine and more aggro and combo then it makes more sense to have it relegated to the side board.
If you disagree I would be curious what uses you think it has and what you would take out to make room for it. I would assume that if your were going to add the cobra it would have to be a 4-of? Maybe a 3-of?