If a player only has like 25 cards left in his library (and Narcomoeba somewhere in it), is it possible to just mill it one at a time without getting a Slow Play infraction?
I still don't see how hitting a narcomoeba stops the loop though, since it isn't adding any more cards back into the library so the expected game state will still happen in the future.
If your opponent miscount the number of triggers and tell you to draw less, you're under no obligation to remind him the triggers he missed. I think the example got you confused.
How many cards can I draw? Only the right number, or only the number he told me, or both?
Because you don't know what the game-state is going to be when the first narcomeba shows up.
Just so you are aware, Toby Elliot is the Level 5 Judge who creates tournament policy and that quote is [O]fficial policy.
If he says you cannot do it, you cannot do it and attempting to do so is Slow Play.
Okay, I get that if Toby says people can't do it, then people can't do it. Even though his reasoning is self-contradictory, he is top dude.
For the narcomoeba case, I do know the end state though. If I know the opponent has 2 narcomoebas in his library, then I can predict the end state to be 2 narcomoebas on the field and an empty library.
No, the appearance of the first Nacromoeba will stop the loop.
How would it if I specified the end state which is consistent with Nacromoebas being put onto the battlefield?
2) I want to set up my deck so that it is in an exact order.
Technically, this is possible - you just bubble sort your deck until it matches the order you want. However, you cannot say how many iterations it will take, and thus you aren't allowed to do it. Trying to do so now gets you a slow play warning and it's time to go do something else instead.
That is already debunked. You can say how many iterations a bubble sort would take. It's at maximum n^2 iterations where n is the number of cards in your deck.
Wait but if I know the opponent only runs two Narcomoebas and he has none in hand or on the battlefield, then technically I can say, "Mill 100, End State with library empty and two Narcomoebas on the battlefield under your control." And it would be legal.
Q. My opponent is playing Owling mine/Turbo fog and has several howling mine/Font of mythos out. They miscount and tell me to draw less cards than I should. Do I have to say anything? A. Nope. You are not obligated to do anything if you notice your opponent miss a mandatory trigger.
Q. What if my opponent later notices his mistake and calls a judge? A. Then the judge will asses what has happened and if they find that your opponent missed the trigger accidentally, then they will likely be issued with a Missed Trigger infraction, and the trigger will be put on the bottom of the stack.
When it comes to drawing many cards this could be difficult, but for simple things like just one mine, or a Phyrexian Arena it would be easier to see.
Wait wait wait. So if your opponent miscounts the number of cards that you have to draw, and tells you to draw x instead of y, even though it is mandatory for you to draw y, you can now legally draw x? Am I understanding this correctly? What the heck?
If we use the deck as-is (8 blue mana sources), statistically speaking, there is a 35% chance that you will not have a blue mana source in your opening hand. A 29% chance of that on the first draw, 25% chance on the second draw and 21% chance on the third draw. Not having the right mana to cast your geist or mana leak on turns 3-4 would be a major hindrance. It may just cost you the game.
I am aware the percent chances do not take mulligan into consideration, but even with mulligan, the chances of not getting blue mana won't differ much from the original calculations.
In my OP notice how I did not say or propose anything about what punishments are suitable for drawing extra cards.
You say it results in a warning whilst Arcengal says it results in a game loss.
Game loss or Match loss, one of those imo. If it is about drawing out of sequence (whilst opponent is looking away for instance) it should be DQ.
Drawing two cards in one draw, double card, it should prolly be Match Loss.
Actually it is not a card draw issue, the issue is failure to place the cards back to the library. This results in a Game Play Error - Game Rule Violation, not Game Play Error - Drawing Extra Cards. Right now, GRV is punishable by a Warning for first offense.
If you say judges should no longer enforce GRV, how should this get resolved?
Okay, I'm confused. Now, I don't quite understand what you are saying.
Example:
Player A plays Brainstorm and draws 3 cards.
Player A then immediately plays Ponder without putting 2 cards back onto the top of the library.
Player B notices this.
Under the current rules:
Player B calls a judge. GRV is determined and player A is issued a Warning.
For Myr, I pronounce it as Meer
Are you running humans, werewolves or wolf token generators at all?
I still don't see how hitting a narcomoeba stops the loop though, since it isn't adding any more cards back into the library so the expected game state will still happen in the future.
Awesome, so I guess what Alex Bertoncini did will actually be legal in 2012.
How many cards can I draw? Only the right number, or only the number he told me, or both?
Okay, I get that if Toby says people can't do it, then people can't do it. Even though his reasoning is self-contradictory, he is top dude.
For the narcomoeba case, I do know the end state though. If I know the opponent has 2 narcomoebas in his library, then I can predict the end state to be 2 narcomoebas on the field and an empty library.
How would it if I specified the end state which is consistent with Nacromoebas being put onto the battlefield?
That is already debunked. You can say how many iterations a bubble sort would take. It's at maximum n^2 iterations where n is the number of cards in your deck.
Wait wait wait. So if your opponent miscounts the number of cards that you have to draw, and tells you to draw x instead of y, even though it is mandatory for you to draw y, you can now legally draw x? Am I understanding this correctly? What the heck?
If we use the deck as-is (8 blue mana sources), statistically speaking, there is a 35% chance that you will not have a blue mana source in your opening hand. A 29% chance of that on the first draw, 25% chance on the second draw and 21% chance on the third draw. Not having the right mana to cast your geist or mana leak on turns 3-4 would be a major hindrance. It may just cost you the game.
I am aware the percent chances do not take mulligan into consideration, but even with mulligan, the chances of not getting blue mana won't differ much from the original calculations.
2) Spellskite is not a legal target for the wolf, since it has protection from creatures. The ability cannot be redirected.
Green Sun's Zenith is not a one-drop
Actually it is not a card draw issue, the issue is failure to place the cards back to the library. This results in a Game Play Error - Game Rule Violation, not Game Play Error - Drawing Extra Cards. Right now, GRV is punishable by a Warning for first offense.
If you say judges should no longer enforce GRV, how should this get resolved?
Example:
Player A plays Brainstorm and draws 3 cards.
Player A then immediately plays Ponder without putting 2 cards back onto the top of the library.
Player B notices this.
Under the current rules:
Player B calls a judge. GRV is determined and player A is issued a Warning.
Under your rules:
What happens?