i like that it gives an opponent the choice, but either option breaks a rule. its sneaky.
but i would say illegal, because no matter what choice the opponent makes, the deck is illegal.
If a deck can deal exactly 16 damage before it's opponent's second turn, and then can cast Skullscorch, is that deck legal?
It's legal.
The rule in question reads:
"An entrant may not submit a deck that could enable the player of that deck to win the game or force any cards in an opponent's hand to change zones before an opponent's second turn. A card is forced to change zones if the owner of that card could make no sequence of decisions that would not result in that card changing zones."
So, there are two questions to ask.
First, can the deck win before an opponent's second turn? The answer is no, because the opponent can discard two cards.
Second, can the deck force an opponent to discard? The answer again is no. The opponent can make a decision - paying 4 life - that doesn't result in cards in his or her hand changing zones.
If the result is counter-intuitive, it's because winning is related to optimal play, but the definition of "force" isn't.
EDIT 1:
My reasoning for separating the definition of force from optimal play is that optimal play frequently entails playing cards, which results in cards in hand changing zones.
EDIT 2:
To improve the situation (to make the hypothetical deck illegal), I suggest the expanded definition of "force" below:
"An entrant may not submit a deck that could enable the player of that deck to win the game or force any cards in an opponent's hand to change zones before an opponent's second turn. A card is forced to change zones if the owner of that card could make no sequence of decisions that would not result in either that card changing zones or that player losing the game before his or her second turn."
I'll think about how further to improve the wording such that the added clause doesn't look out of place, but I think the suggested rule is at least perfectly functional.
Moggs rewording has been taken, but it was always considered illegal.
It forced the discard because players have to play to further the game as best as possible. This means they can't choose to lose the game from the skullscorch/tyranize, so the discard is thus forced.
(edit: This has been reworded? [1.11d.]?)
Moggs rewording has been taken, but it was always considered illegal.
It forced the discard because players have to play to further the game as best as possible. This means they can't choose to lose the game from the skullscorch/tyranize, so the discard is thus forced.
(edit: This has been reworded? [1.11d.]?)
But again, I took Mogg's rewording for clarity.
I'm not sure I buy this explanation. Here was a deck from 2HG 2CB:
10 psly4mne :: ""
Mind Bomb / Emrakul, the Aeons Torn / Shelldock Isle
It casts turn 1 Mind Bomb. In the mirror match of this deck versus itself, the opponent discards Emrakul to Mind Bomb to prevent 1 damage, because that's the optimal play. Are they "forced" to discard to prevent that one damage? Should this deck have been illegal?
But it's moot, because I think Mogg's rules change removes any ambiguity.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
This was for fork week, so Tyrannize+Bolt was lethal. The response was that it wasn't allowed.
Practice for Khans of Tarkir Limited:
Draft: (#1) (#2) (#3) (#4) (#5)
but i would say illegal, because no matter what choice the opponent makes, the deck is illegal.
It's legal.
The rule in question reads:
"An entrant may not submit a deck that could enable the player of that deck to win the game or force any cards in an opponent's hand to change zones before an opponent's second turn. A card is forced to change zones if the owner of that card could make no sequence of decisions that would not result in that card changing zones."
So, there are two questions to ask.
First, can the deck win before an opponent's second turn? The answer is no, because the opponent can discard two cards.
Second, can the deck force an opponent to discard? The answer again is no. The opponent can make a decision - paying 4 life - that doesn't result in cards in his or her hand changing zones.
If the result is counter-intuitive, it's because winning is related to optimal play, but the definition of "force" isn't.
EDIT 1:
My reasoning for separating the definition of force from optimal play is that optimal play frequently entails playing cards, which results in cards in hand changing zones.
EDIT 2:
To improve the situation (to make the hypothetical deck illegal), I suggest the expanded definition of "force" below:
"An entrant may not submit a deck that could enable the player of that deck to win the game or force any cards in an opponent's hand to change zones before an opponent's second turn. A card is forced to change zones if the owner of that card could make no sequence of decisions that would not result in either that card changing zones or that player losing the game before his or her second turn."
I'll think about how further to improve the wording such that the added clause doesn't look out of place, but I think the suggested rule is at least perfectly functional.
BWTeysa, Orzhov Scion
GWRhys the Redeemed
GUKruphix, God of Horizons
GRXenagos, God of Revels
GThrun, the Last Troll
GStompy
It forced the discard because players have to play to further the game as best as possible. This means they can't choose to lose the game from the skullscorch/tyranize, so the discard is thus forced.
(edit: This has been reworded? [1.11d.]?)
But again, I took Mogg's rewording for clarity.
No longer staff here.
10 psly4mne :: ""
Mind Bomb / Emrakul, the Aeons Torn / Shelldock Isle
It casts turn 1 Mind Bomb. In the mirror match of this deck versus itself, the opponent discards Emrakul to Mind Bomb to prevent 1 damage, because that's the optimal play. Are they "forced" to discard to prevent that one damage? Should this deck have been illegal?
But it's moot, because I think Mogg's rules change removes any ambiguity.