In a limited game last night, it was my turn. I was at 2 life with an unblockable Sewer Shambler and some other irrelevant blocker. My opponent was at 4 life with an untapped Lobber Crew enchanted with Stab Wound and two other blockers.
Going into my turn, my hand is irrelevant and as far as I can see, I'm dead on board to Lobber Crew + Untap ping while Stab Wound is on the stack. Even though I can get through with Sewer Shambler to put him at 2, his untap step will let him kill me with Lobber Crew before Stab Wound resolves.
However, my opponent looking at the board concedes to me. Realizing that him not seeing his on-board win, I realize I actually have an opportunity to win. How do you handle this delicate situation?
I asked if he was conceding and he was confused as to why he wouldn't. This repeated and I said we could play it out to completion instead if he wanted. I assumed he would see the win.
At some point the player next to him (whom I know personally) became involved with the situation. I don't remember exactly how he entered our exchange, but I knew it could potentially spoil this win if he said too much unprompted. He was trying to answer a question, but I wasn't paying attention too carefully. I told him that he shouldn't interfere with the match, but let him continue explaining whatever it was.
If my opponent had a specific rules question, I don't mind him having it answered, but I didn't want the third player just pointing out that he could ping me in response to the trigger.
My opponent stuck with his concession and that win won me the match 2-0. I think he may have been confused what all the fuss was about.
After I confirmed his concession, I pointed out what he missed. At that point, the third player realized what the life totals were and I think he understood the situation I was in as well. I think my opponent was under the impression that Stab Wound damages you as your turn starts and didn't understand that it went onto the stack and could be responded to. He was upset, but glad to learn.
He could just as easily have been furious or outraged at this point and I don't know what I would have done.
Did I do anything wrong? Should I feel guilty about not offering to do a game 3 anyway?
I think I would feel bad (or at least much worse) if I had hadn't asked him if he was indeed conceding no less than three times.
the boundaries of where I can kick spectators out of saying things in games I'm playing.
My opinion on Spectators is that they shouldn't become involved and if they do always call a judge over. I've had spectators try to judge a game of mine once and it probably cost me a match win. That being said it never hurts to call a judge if you are unsure of a ruling/situation and spectators shouldn't get involved in matches and if they do always call a judge.
As for the OP, I would always take wins when I can get them. But you also taught the guy what he did wrong in the situation and he'll likely be more aware of that in the future. There is a lot of pressure at events (even small ones) that you may not see all your interactions and being told what the optimal play is will help him in the future. Be glad you got a win, but feel better that you taught someone to play better.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I just want people who redraft to admit this:
"I can't draft objectively unless I am able to guarantee that I receive at least 3 rares. I am also better than most average/new players so I want to make sure that I get the best rares and they end up with worse ones. I care more about the monetary value of cards than actually playing the game for decent prizes."
Yeah that's an awfully awkward situation. I think you made the right call. Your opponent learned something important regardless of the fact that they lose the game. I imagine you weren't condescending with your explanation and it could have led to a result of him feeling insulted that you played the game for him by telling him how to win the game.
I was talking with some friends last night and they told me a story of a pretty strange judge call (if someone could find the article that'd be great as I'm not 100% sure on the details and it's like a 3rd hand story deal).
Middle of a game a player has out Garruk Wildspeaker goes to use his +1 to Untap 2 Lands but only has 1 Land untapped. That player doesn't realize he can just tap a land in response and have floating mana or even just use it on a tapped land. That player calls a judge and says hey what can I do I only have 1 untapped land. The judge can't give him strategic advice and just tells him that to activate an ability with targets he has to choose the relevant number of targets. The player asks basically the same question in which they get the same reply. The opponent decides to say "hey you can target one of my lands". The judge then disqualified the opponent for outside assistance. This was a competitive event of some type.
It sounds like you did the right thing to me. You hinted to him in an attempt to help him realize he had a chance to win but he failed to see it.
At the same time it doesn't sound like the spectator was trying to interfere but it's hard to say without the conversation.
Last night I decided not to play and just watch games. In round 3 a friend of mine (who only started over the summer and plays about once every few weeks) was in a game where he played Tamiyo and passed the turn without using an ability (he didn't realize he could tap lands and the opponent had no creatures). Two turns later he forgot to use her again after having tapped down Nefarox the turn prior. He inevitably lost due to sacking fog banks to Nefarox and Tamiyo being hit, but at the same time it was hard for me as a spectator to watch. Both players were 0-2 going in so there wasn't hope for them being in the top few out of the 50~ playing, but after the game his opponent and I explained what he missed and that actually helped him in round 5.
I guess I'm just saying that there are times when spectators see something that is so obvious and can change the tide of a game that we may just point it out without a second thought but the only way to help someone get better is to let them make the mistakes.
I would have pointed out the win to him and given him the game. But I realize I am in the minority opinion on topics like this when compared to other players.
My rationale is that by showing him, I make him a happier player, make him more likely to keep coming back to the LGS, hence helping to grow the game, I create goodwill with another player, that may be repaid some day, and I consider it simply good sportsmanship. Personally, that's worth more to me than winning a couple packs in a limited game.
I probably concede to him as well. It's a low competition environment where learning is important (especially for new players). That and I consider it good sportsmanship to acknowledge that within the rules of the game you lost. That's what FNM is for - helping new people become accustomed to the game, meet new players and friends, and to learn tournament procedures.
At a higher level event (like a Grand Prix or Star City Open) I probably don't point it out. Mainly because those tournaments expect you to have a certain amount of knowledge and fair grasp of the rules to be playing in them.
Than again I still might - because I want to know I either won or lost because of the proper plays and a good game, not because of a blatant mistake. Little questionable mistakes or nuanced mistakes are a different matter in my opinion. Games are won and lost off of who made the least mistakes or misplays (especially in sports or competitive things like chess). Errors like the one described by the OP shouldn't fit into that category though.
Paying attention to the game and knowing what your cards do is a part of the skill of the game. If you miss it, it's a play mistake and you should learn from it. It's up to each person to decide, but I feel that giving up a win like that doesn't benefit anyone. They didn't earn it and you cost yourself one game or a match, depending. It also depends what the tournament level is. In a qualifier or any tournament of that level, no mercy. In FNM or something similar, things are less strict.
I feel you OP about spectators. Spectators almost made me lose the finals of a sanctioned modern event tonight. Was on Merfolk and opponent was on Elves. He was at 2 me at 18, he had Copperhorn Scout 2x (1 summoning sick)Elvish Archdruid and Ezuri, Renegade Leader and an arbor elf. Now this guy was borrowing the deck from a buddy of mine and didn't know the combo (despite me telling him outside a game before the top 4). At this point we had probably 6 spectators, his friends were saying just win which while not kosher I wasn't going to get onto them for it. He taps archdruid and reaches for his creatures but before he gets there I decide to be nice and say "using 5 mana for?" so he doesn't empty his pool. He obviously overrun's with ezuri, swings for 22 iirc so I double block with my merrow rejerrey and master of the pearl trident, at this point I ask him "Is that it move to combat damage?" he replies yes and meanwhile his friends are groaning and one guy is screaming nonono, he pauses for a second, I snap at the audience and they all start glaring at me like I'm a bad guy for that. Luckily he doesn't catch on that he can overrun again with his untapped archdruid that untapped with copperhorn.
I still ended up losing the game in a rather embarrassing way, I thought I had 2 outs, I either needed lightning bolt (splashed a couple colors because I'm a greedy bastard) or I thought spreading seas I had 4 merfolk but then I realized I didn't have a lord of atlantis or master of the pearl trident and I didn't draw it off the seas. Made me sad.
I probably concede to him as well. It's a low competition environment where learning is important (especially for new players). That and I consider it good sportsmanship to acknowledge that within the rules of the game you lost. That's what FNM is for - helping new people become accustomed to the game, meet new players and friends, and to learn tournament procedures.
At a higher level event (like a Grand Prix or Star City Open) I probably don't point it out. Mainly because those tournaments expect you to have a certain amount of knowledge and fair grasp of the rules to be playing in them.
Than again I still might - because I want to know I either won or lost because of the proper plays and a good game, not because of a blatant mistake. Little questionable mistakes or nuanced mistakes are a different matter in my opinion. Games are won and lost off of who made the least mistakes or misplays (especially in sports or competitive things like chess). Errors like the one described by the OP shouldn't fit into that category though.
With in the rules of the game, he didn't loose though. Opponents can concede at anytime, and he clearly made sure he wantd to. The rules don't say that I must help my opponent play optimally. If he doesn't understand, I'll tell him after. People learn better after getting burned on a mistake. He wasn't rude about it or anything as far as i can tell. Errors like that really do fit that category. Mistakes are mistakes. Whether my poor play is made by a flawed decision tree on my part, bad rules knowledge on my part, or misreading reading the board state on my part and not because my opponents misleading in anyway, the common words there are on MY part. Letting people makes mistakes makes them better.
Middle of a game a player has out Garruk Wildspeaker goes to use his +1 to Untap 2 Lands but only has 1 Land untapped. That player doesn't realize he can just tap a land in response and have floating mana or even just use it on a tapped land. That player calls a judge and says hey what can I do I only have 1 untapped land. The judge can't give him strategic advice and just tells him that to activate an ability with targets he has to choose the relevant number of targets. The player asks basically the same question in which they get the same reply. The opponent decides to say "hey you can target one of my lands".
Garruk untaps 2 target lands. They don't have to be tapped to be targeted. Garruk's controller does not have to control the lands, so the opponent was also correct. But yes, the floating mana would have been the best play.
I played in a GPT yesterday, and you better believe I didn't remind my opponents of triggers (or give them any sort of help in general). I won a game because some guy forgot his GoST angel trigger, and another was definitely affected because he didn't put a 3/3 in play after a thragtusk died.
A Magic tournament is a test of skill; if your opponent doesn't understand, or forgets things, it's because his play is not perfect, and you're perfectly entitled to beat him for it, especially (in my case) at competitive REL.
The best way to handle it is to let it happen, then, after the match, explain to him what he should have done, just as you did. He'll remember.
A Magic tournament is a test of skill; if your opponent doesn't understand, or forgets things, it's because his play is not perfect, and you're perfectly entitled to beat him for it, especially (in my case) at competitive REL.
As a game, some of us also consider it a test of character and sportsmanship. And some of us value those things than tournamanet winnings. Just because you value the dollar over everything else doesn't mean everyone else does.
I won a game because some guy forgot his GoST angel trigger, and another was definitely affected because he didn't put a 3/3 in play after a thragtusk died.
Some us also consider winning due to an opponent forgetting a trigger as not winning due to our skill. If I'm going to win, I want to win on my own merits. Not benefit from someone else forgetting a trigger.
The best way to handle it is to let it happen, then, after the match, explain to him what he should have done, just as you did. He'll remember.
That's not the "best" way to handle it, it's the way you chose to handle it. I consider what you did the worst way to handle it, because I value friendly play and sportsmanship over taking advantage of people mistakes.
Either you are mistaken, or your judge really need to learn the rules. Disqualifying the opponent (a player in the game) for outside assistance? That's one of the worst rulings I've heard of.
About the OPs question, not pointing out on board wins is not fishy. I've won many games this way, and lost a few too. Often it's not about rules knowledge but seeing the right path to victory. I'm a judge so I know what protection does, but I still missed a on board kill with a SoFaF once for example.
It wasn't a judge I knew. It was one of the top 10 weirdest judge calls in an article or something. But yeah I agree it was a weird call but as it was the opponent was offering strategic advice and it may have been inside the game but it was outside the person playing Garruk (I don't know if that's the logic behind the call). But like I said I haven't read the article and even if I did, I still wasn't there to see it so never know all the details.
As a game, some of us also consider it a test of character and sportsmanship. And some of us value those things than tournamanet winnings. Just because you value the dollar over everything else doesn't mean everyone else does.
It's got nothing to do with money. I like magic because it's competitive. That means I win If I play better, and lose if I don't (and believe me, I've done plenty of that, to people far more skilled then I am).
I'm a spike, that's why I play the game. It's a challenge, and it involves remember a set of complicated rules underlying the strategy of the game.
Some us also consider winning due to an opponent forgetting a trigger as not winning due to our skill. If I'm going to win, I want to win on my own merits. Not benefit from someone else forgetting a trigger.
Skill is always relative. I play against both much worse and much better players at my store (we're taking the difference between someone who started playing a month ago and a Pro Tour regular with multiple GP top8s, here). My skill doesn't change if I play those two people in a row, yet I'll win one and lose the other...
The issue here, though, is that you don't think remembering triggers is part of magic skill. I disagree. "Technical play" (remembering triggers, understanding of priority and the stack, etc.) is like spelling and grammar. I don't care if you're William freaking Shakespeare, if I can't read what you're writing because it's ridden with mistakes, then you're not a good writer. If you can't remember your triggers, you're not a good magic player.
I'd also like to note that I sometimes miss triggers too, and I don't expect anybody to let them happen. I try to be as fair as possible whenever I play, and that sometimes mean calling a judge even though I'll get a warning from it (for example, I once noticed someone had played Sigarda, Host of Herons without two white sources, which got him a warning for breaking the rules... and got me a warning for failure to maintain the gamestate).
That's not the "best" way to handle it, it's the way you chose to handle it. I consider what you did the worst way to handle it, because I value friendly play and sportsmanship over taking advantage of people mistakes.
Consider this.
Another opponent in the same tournament was playing B/G zombies, against my Bant control (with many sweepers). He brings me to 12 on his turn 3, with 3 creatures on the board. He then plays two more creatures... Which I Supreme Verdict away, for a 5-for-1 in my favor. I would have wiped the board anyway, of course, because otherwise I died in two turns, but his play basically ripped his hand apart; he never had another zombie to bring back his Gravecrawlers.
The turn afterwards, he cast Appetite for Brains, and instead of removing my Terminus (which I would be able to cast turn turns later with the two lands I had in hand), he removed a restoration angel he had removal for anyway. Again, he plays some creatures, deals some damage, and then I get insane value out of my sweeper.
I then stabilize and proceed to handily win the game.
Now, he could easily have had that game; I didn't win because I was good, I won because he played badly. I dropped to 2 life at one point. One less misplay and he would have won. But he stumbled, and I won. Should I have pointed out the right strategic play? Should we play by consensus, systematically finding the best play we can devise? That makes no sense to me; it stops being a game - a competition - and starts being a puzzle.
Now, don't get me wrong. If I'm playing commander with friends, I would never try to be a rules lawyer. I'll try to remind them of triggers, and even, yes, give them strategic advice. It's not really a competition, it's more a social thing. Hell, even in FNM, if I'm playing against someone that's not as experienced, I'll let things slide.
But I consider that if you register at a competitive REL tournament, you know what you're getting into (that is, cut-throat competition).
At FNMs I always try to remind my opponent of their triggers, cause its FNM its not a big tournament the most on the line is some store credit (Even though the people at my local FNM are super competitive why have 9 of the top 10 spots in the state held). If Im at a GP Trial or anything like that no Im not reminding my opponent of his triggers cause its not my responsibility its Competitive tournament. As for letting a situation in the OP I would not have told him how to kill me even at an FNM cause that isnt a missed trigger thats a play mistake.
It wasn't a judge I knew. It was one of the top 10 weirdest judge calls in an article or something. But yeah I agree it was a weird call but as it was the opponent was offering strategic advice and it may have been inside the game but it was outside the person playing Garruk (I don't know if that's the logic behind the call). But like I said I haven't read the article and even if I did, I still wasn't there to see it so never know all the details.
I read that article, it was another spectator, not the opponent who got penalized for telling the player that he could untap his opponent's land. What made it weird was that then after the judge call finished, the player just ended his turn, apparently forgetting the advice within ten seconds.
That's my point. You consider MTG a cut throat competition. Not everyone does. I certainly don't, and I act accordingly. You do, and act accordingly.
I will never convince you that MTG should be a friendly game of sportsmanship and good will. You will never convince me that the only thing that matters in MTG is winning and you should shark and rules lawyer a win at every opportunity, because winning at all costs is all that matters.
I've been in a similar situation. Yeah, it sucks getting a free win due to inexperience, but at the same time, that's part of the game. We were all at that point ourselves. The reason why we aren't is because we learned from it. The way I've always handled it is to play the game normally just as I would with anyone else, and then afterwards explain to him the play he could have made, which will make him think about his plays more carefully. Giving him the win is feeding him a fish in my opinion. Helping him to understand analyzing a board and looking for plays he may not have seen before is teaching him how to fish.
That's my point. You consider MTG a cut throat competition. Not everyone does. I certainly don't, and I act accordingly. You do, and act accordingly.
I will never convince you that MTG should be a friendly game of sportsmanship and good will. You will never convince me that the only thing that matters in MTG is winning and you should shark and rules lawyer a win at every opportunity, because winning at all costs is all that matters.
Did you read my post? I didn't say magic as a whole is supposed to be cut-throat, I said cut-throat competition is supposed to be cut-throat.
Now, don't get me wrong. If I'm playing commander with friends, I would never try to be a rules lawyer. I'll try to remind them of triggers, and even, yes, give them strategic advice. It's not really a competition, it's more a social thing.
Now, you clearly think I'm a terrible human being, and I don't like that. I'm not trying to get you to enjoy competition, I'm trying to explain why I (and other people) like it. Do you understand?
Going into my turn, my hand is irrelevant and as far as I can see, I'm dead on board to Lobber Crew + Untap ping while Stab Wound is on the stack. Even though I can get through with Sewer Shambler to put him at 2, his untap step will let him kill me with Lobber Crew before Stab Wound resolves.
However, my opponent looking at the board concedes to me. Realizing that him not seeing his on-board win, I realize I actually have an opportunity to win. How do you handle this delicate situation?
At some point the player next to him (whom I know personally) became involved with the situation. I don't remember exactly how he entered our exchange, but I knew it could potentially spoil this win if he said too much unprompted. He was trying to answer a question, but I wasn't paying attention too carefully. I told him that he shouldn't interfere with the match, but let him continue explaining whatever it was.
If my opponent had a specific rules question, I don't mind him having it answered, but I didn't want the third player just pointing out that he could ping me in response to the trigger.
My opponent stuck with his concession and that win won me the match 2-0. I think he may have been confused what all the fuss was about.
He could just as easily have been furious or outraged at this point and I don't know what I would have done.
I think I would feel bad (or at least much worse) if I had hadn't asked him if he was indeed conceding no less than three times.
Older Magic as a Board Game: Panglacial Wurm , Mill
Older Magic as a Board Game: Panglacial Wurm , Mill
My opinion on Spectators is that they shouldn't become involved and if they do always call a judge over. I've had spectators try to judge a game of mine once and it probably cost me a match win. That being said it never hurts to call a judge if you are unsure of a ruling/situation and spectators shouldn't get involved in matches and if they do always call a judge.
As for the OP, I would always take wins when I can get them. But you also taught the guy what he did wrong in the situation and he'll likely be more aware of that in the future. There is a lot of pressure at events (even small ones) that you may not see all your interactions and being told what the optimal play is will help him in the future. Be glad you got a win, but feel better that you taught someone to play better.
Watch Play Read
Twitter
I was talking with some friends last night and they told me a story of a pretty strange judge call (if someone could find the article that'd be great as I'm not 100% sure on the details and it's like a 3rd hand story deal).
Middle of a game a player has out Garruk Wildspeaker goes to use his +1 to Untap 2 Lands but only has 1 Land untapped. That player doesn't realize he can just tap a land in response and have floating mana or even just use it on a tapped land. That player calls a judge and says hey what can I do I only have 1 untapped land. The judge can't give him strategic advice and just tells him that to activate an ability with targets he has to choose the relevant number of targets. The player asks basically the same question in which they get the same reply. The opponent decides to say "hey you can target one of my lands". The judge then disqualified the opponent for outside assistance. This was a competitive event of some type.
At the same time it doesn't sound like the spectator was trying to interfere but it's hard to say without the conversation.
Last night I decided not to play and just watch games. In round 3 a friend of mine (who only started over the summer and plays about once every few weeks) was in a game where he played Tamiyo and passed the turn without using an ability (he didn't realize he could tap lands and the opponent had no creatures). Two turns later he forgot to use her again after having tapped down Nefarox the turn prior. He inevitably lost due to sacking fog banks to Nefarox and Tamiyo being hit, but at the same time it was hard for me as a spectator to watch. Both players were 0-2 going in so there wasn't hope for them being in the top few out of the 50~ playing, but after the game his opponent and I explained what he missed and that actually helped him in round 5.
I guess I'm just saying that there are times when spectators see something that is so obvious and can change the tide of a game that we may just point it out without a second thought but the only way to help someone get better is to let them make the mistakes.
My rationale is that by showing him, I make him a happier player, make him more likely to keep coming back to the LGS, hence helping to grow the game, I create goodwill with another player, that may be repaid some day, and I consider it simply good sportsmanship. Personally, that's worth more to me than winning a couple packs in a limited game.
At a higher level event (like a Grand Prix or Star City Open) I probably don't point it out. Mainly because those tournaments expect you to have a certain amount of knowledge and fair grasp of the rules to be playing in them.
Than again I still might - because I want to know I either won or lost because of the proper plays and a good game, not because of a blatant mistake. Little questionable mistakes or nuanced mistakes are a different matter in my opinion. Games are won and lost off of who made the least mistakes or misplays (especially in sports or competitive things like chess). Errors like the one described by the OP shouldn't fit into that category though.
How To Keep Your FOIL Cards From Curling: http://youtu.be/QTmubrS8VnI
The Best Deck Boxes: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uEwgLph_Pjk
The Best Binders: http://youtu.be/H5IauASYWjk
The opportunity to be a teacher? What does Magic give you in life? Really dude, a win is a win.
I still ended up losing the game in a rather embarrassing way, I thought I had 2 outs, I either needed lightning bolt (splashed a couple colors because I'm a greedy bastard) or I thought spreading seas I had 4 merfolk but then I realized I didn't have a lord of atlantis or master of the pearl trident and I didn't draw it off the seas. Made me sad.
With in the rules of the game, he didn't loose though. Opponents can concede at anytime, and he clearly made sure he wantd to. The rules don't say that I must help my opponent play optimally. If he doesn't understand, I'll tell him after. People learn better after getting burned on a mistake. He wasn't rude about it or anything as far as i can tell. Errors like that really do fit that category. Mistakes are mistakes. Whether my poor play is made by a flawed decision tree on my part, bad rules knowledge on my part, or misreading reading the board state on my part and not because my opponents misleading in anyway, the common words there are on MY part. Letting people makes mistakes makes them better.
I once stomped someone so bad that after four turns on game one they got up, shook my hand, and went to leave.
Garruk untaps 2 target lands. They don't have to be tapped to be targeted. Garruk's controller does not have to control the lands, so the opponent was also correct. But yes, the floating mana would have been the best play.
A Magic tournament is a test of skill; if your opponent doesn't understand, or forgets things, it's because his play is not perfect, and you're perfectly entitled to beat him for it, especially (in my case) at competitive REL.
The best way to handle it is to let it happen, then, after the match, explain to him what he should have done, just as you did. He'll remember.
As a game, some of us also consider it a test of character and sportsmanship. And some of us value those things than tournamanet winnings. Just because you value the dollar over everything else doesn't mean everyone else does.
Some us also consider winning due to an opponent forgetting a trigger as not winning due to our skill. If I'm going to win, I want to win on my own merits. Not benefit from someone else forgetting a trigger.
That's not the "best" way to handle it, it's the way you chose to handle it. I consider what you did the worst way to handle it, because I value friendly play and sportsmanship over taking advantage of people mistakes.
It wasn't a judge I knew. It was one of the top 10 weirdest judge calls in an article or something. But yeah I agree it was a weird call but as it was the opponent was offering strategic advice and it may have been inside the game but it was outside the person playing Garruk (I don't know if that's the logic behind the call). But like I said I haven't read the article and even if I did, I still wasn't there to see it so never know all the details.
I'm a spike, that's why I play the game. It's a challenge, and it involves remember a set of complicated rules underlying the strategy of the game.
Skill is always relative. I play against both much worse and much better players at my store (we're taking the difference between someone who started playing a month ago and a Pro Tour regular with multiple GP top8s, here). My skill doesn't change if I play those two people in a row, yet I'll win one and lose the other...
The issue here, though, is that you don't think remembering triggers is part of magic skill. I disagree. "Technical play" (remembering triggers, understanding of priority and the stack, etc.) is like spelling and grammar. I don't care if you're William freaking Shakespeare, if I can't read what you're writing because it's ridden with mistakes, then you're not a good writer. If you can't remember your triggers, you're not a good magic player.
I'd also like to note that I sometimes miss triggers too, and I don't expect anybody to let them happen. I try to be as fair as possible whenever I play, and that sometimes mean calling a judge even though I'll get a warning from it (for example, I once noticed someone had played Sigarda, Host of Herons without two white sources, which got him a warning for breaking the rules... and got me a warning for failure to maintain the gamestate).
Consider this.
Another opponent in the same tournament was playing B/G zombies, against my Bant control (with many sweepers). He brings me to 12 on his turn 3, with 3 creatures on the board. He then plays two more creatures... Which I Supreme Verdict away, for a 5-for-1 in my favor. I would have wiped the board anyway, of course, because otherwise I died in two turns, but his play basically ripped his hand apart; he never had another zombie to bring back his Gravecrawlers.
The turn afterwards, he cast Appetite for Brains, and instead of removing my Terminus (which I would be able to cast turn turns later with the two lands I had in hand), he removed a restoration angel he had removal for anyway. Again, he plays some creatures, deals some damage, and then I get insane value out of my sweeper.
I then stabilize and proceed to handily win the game.
Now, he could easily have had that game; I didn't win because I was good, I won because he played badly. I dropped to 2 life at one point. One less misplay and he would have won. But he stumbled, and I won. Should I have pointed out the right strategic play? Should we play by consensus, systematically finding the best play we can devise? That makes no sense to me; it stops being a game - a competition - and starts being a puzzle.
Now, don't get me wrong. If I'm playing commander with friends, I would never try to be a rules lawyer. I'll try to remind them of triggers, and even, yes, give them strategic advice. It's not really a competition, it's more a social thing. Hell, even in FNM, if I'm playing against someone that's not as experienced, I'll let things slide.
But I consider that if you register at a competitive REL tournament, you know what you're getting into (that is, cut-throat competition).
I read that article, it was another spectator, not the opponent who got penalized for telling the player that he could untap his opponent's land. What made it weird was that then after the judge call finished, the player just ended his turn, apparently forgetting the advice within ten seconds.
That's my point. You consider MTG a cut throat competition. Not everyone does. I certainly don't, and I act accordingly. You do, and act accordingly.
I will never convince you that MTG should be a friendly game of sportsmanship and good will. You will never convince me that the only thing that matters in MTG is winning and you should shark and rules lawyer a win at every opportunity, because winning at all costs is all that matters.
Did you read my post? I didn't say magic as a whole is supposed to be cut-throat, I said cut-throat competition is supposed to be cut-throat.
Now, you clearly think I'm a terrible human being, and I don't like that. I'm not trying to get you to enjoy competition, I'm trying to explain why I (and other people) like it. Do you understand?