0 points for ties, 0 points for losses, 1 point for wins...
Try to concede with THOSE rules.
And seriously.
It shouldn't be THAT hard to judge a winner in would-be ties.
And if you actually draw by going to time? What then? And even if these rules are implemented, going undefeated still likely allows you to draw/lose into top 8.
Any "real competitor" will ask you for your concession.
There's no entitlement on either side. If you feel like conceding and letting a guy into top 8, go for it. If not, fine. If you want to see who he'd be bumping out and then decide, you're completely within your rights to do so. But getting a concession is a much more sure win than trying to play it out. In my opinion, if you don't try to get a concession in these situations, you're not trying hard enough.
This is not to say that bribery is okay, or anything like that. The decision is firmly in the hands of the possibly-conceding player.
EDIT: I must say, sportsmanship is far too subjective a value for me to base my decision on; just look at this thread, there are people saying the sportsman will scoop, while others say the sportsman must play every match.
What I still don't get, is why anyone would ever think it acceptable to enter a gaming store with a box of cards that were purchased elsewhere and start drafting/trading with those cards at a gaming store table ?
Okay. Let me get this straight....
I'm going to open a game store.
You can only use cards that you buy from me.
How am I going to enforce this? Stamp every card I sell? Make players open their packs in front of me so I can stamp them?
If I do this, the values of the merchandise is likely decreased drastically.
To sell this less-valuable product, I'll have to decrease prices. Then I probably won't make it as a business.
Idk, just seems like a pretty ridiculous idea that the only cards you should use in your shop are those that you got from that shop. After all, I sincerely doubt if enough standard staples are opened in one shop to support a healthy metagame.
Brick and Mortar stores are, unfortunately, forced to resort to selling food and drink, and, as my local store does very successfully, LAN time on quality computers. The store is open 24/7/365, with employees that are enjoyable, if not quirky, and some of the most knowledgeable around. The store runs weekly FNM, multiple drafts, and weekly vintage tournaments, along with PTQs and GPTs when they are scheduled. They also run their own prereleases.
They have been successful enough to expand into another space next door, and are hoping to do so again after their neighbor's lease is up.
There's no reason a store can't be successful, even if it almost never sells boxes or packs for much of a profit.
I don't have the quote, but I'm pretty sure that Wizards said in an article that they took ID's out of the options for Magic online specifically because they did not like that people could ID into top whatever.
They've made it clear that they don't want to allow ID's but consider it too much work to enforce it being illegal. My opinion is that it wouldn't be that much work. Players would report it if someone offered it.
regarding what the person above said about why not just make it a 5 round tournament. That's exactly my thoughts. you are effectively making it a 5 round tournament, so why not actually make it a 5 round tournament.
In many tournaments, you can make the 7 rounds practically 5 for yourself if you go 5-0. However, those last two rounds are often very important if you went 4-1 or even 3-2 in the first 5, depending on how many people there are. If, at the end of the day, 17 points will get you into top 8 (the 17 is an arbitrary amount, changes depending on number of people in tourney/number of rounds etc.), then what's the difference between going:
W
W
W
W
W
ID
ID
and going:
D
W
W
W
W
D
W
IMO, forcing players to try to win is a bit too iron-fisted for my taste, and if you don't force players to try to win, what's to stop them from playing to a draw? They can both just play land-go for the whole game, choose not to attack with creatures, etc... Why would any player who can get into top 8, or past the day 2 cuts for a PT, etc. ever take the risk of playing? Sure, I suppose top 8 pairings are affected.. but that almost never factors into things as it's still dependent on other results.
To be honest, it sounds to me like people don't like the fact that the top players don't have to risk losses, which shuts them out of top 8, or the wrong side of cuts, etc. Tough luck, they earned it; if you want to guarantee yourself a spot, play better.
When you look at the whole situation, it's quite clear that it is still a level playing field. I don't see a problem.
The solicitation for M2010 was in this months Previews. I got a pic of of it that can be found HERE. Closer (but more grainy) pic of just the cards can be found HERE. I don't think there is any new info in there, though the picture for BOP doesn't seem to have the normal tap symbol on it (looks like a "T") & the Serra Angel has an actual "W" in it mana cost, so the image files that were sent to Previews were probably messed up.
I'm wondering if anyone else has seen the font, either. These had better not be real changes... otherwise it'll be disappointing.
During an FNM, a friend of mine was playing another guy. They were each piloting a (slightly) different version of the same deck. Both decks involved Sower of Temptation.
Game 2, having lost the first, one of the players plays Sower on my friend's Reveillark, and proceeds to beat him down for the win. At this point it's tied 1-1. The players shuffle up for game 3 and begin. At some point during game 3, the opponent has one more Reveillark in hand than he was running in his deck, at which point he exclaims, "Well, this can't be right..." Upon further exploration, he comes to realize that they're both using the same sleeves! My friend's Reveillark was in the opponents deck. Being the honest players that they are, they called the judge, who was perplexed at the situation. It had never come up before.
He went to the computer to see if there was precedent, but couldn't find any. So, he gave the only ruling he could: Game loss to each player for illegal decks. This resulted in both players not only losing the match, but also missing top 8. The look on their faces was absolutely priceless.
Age(optional):
18
Grade level:
High School Senior
How long have you been playing MTG:
10 years
How did you get started?
Parents bought me the Starter beginner set
Time per week spent playing:
12-15, excepting large events (GP and PT, prereleases, etc.)
How much do you spend per week on MTG/CCGs?
$25 max, usually.
What do you like most about MTG & CCGs?
Thinking man's game, it entertains me. Just going and hanging out with all the players can be wildly entertaining.
How would you say MTG has helped you? Has in had any negative impacts?
I have gotten in trouble with the parents a couple times for staying out too late after FNM, but that's more my fault. It has, though, kept my brain agile and gives me something entertaining to do.
How do you do in school? Gradewise?
I'm in the top 10 of my graduating class of over 700. I'm a National Merit Scholar.
Are you an active participant in class discussion?
Or laid back/quiet?
I usually dominate class discussions actually. It's gotten to the point where I have to refrain from speaking so other people will actually talk.
Yeah I was talking about drawing cards, why are PW's inherently bad Vs. Fae??
Since the deck's made up almost exclusively of fliers (everything but Mutavault flies), they just fly over and whack your planeswalker to death in most (all) cases.
Which is why I don't define what spectral procession does as CA in the typical sense, but more of VCA (and even then not in the traditional sense of VCA). The problem with equating two dragon fodder tokens, for instance, to CA is that while more permanents are on the board, they're not necessarily superior (inferior in most cases) to a hellkite overlord, for instance. Having a hellkite overlord versus having two fodder tokens results in a +1 board differential for the tokens. That of course, doesn't paint the entire picture, as the overlord will be superior in most cases.
Hence, labelling these cards as virtual card advantage generators is the most accurate. They are pseudo-CA, but this generation of pseudo-CA is not independent of a possibly negative tempo and board position.
Still, it is not incorrect to label spectral procession as card advantage. It simply is a form of card advantage that, ironically, may not necessarily generate a tempo or board advantage. When a terminate is used on a token, the VCA turns into CA, but that doesn't mean that the VCA does not exist.
Hm. I think I agree with this, just what I'm calling "Potential" CA you're calling "Virtual". It's really the same thing. The CA (or lack of) generated by spectral is determined later, by what happens in the game.
Because "What's best?" makes an appeal to value definition. You're evaluating only suffering, and not freedom (afforded by lighthandedness, or restraining onesself from proximally oppressing another).
I don't know about you, but for me, I'd happily give up any form of choice in order to live in eternal bliss. Sounds like one hell of a really awesome ride.
Valuing both of these pillars maximally can cause circumstantial incompatibility -- and this is like dropping an atom bomb on causal time and space, necessitating trillions of temporary troughs of suffering and oppression.
Remember that "benevolence" or "goodness" only has meaning when you define what "good," "positive utility," etc. actually is. If you define it solely as the lack of suffering, you won't be agreeing with the God of the Bible.
What positive utility can be derived from suffering (if it teaches us a lesson, or makes us appreciate something more) when we can simply be instilled with these values or made to appreciate something as we should from the very beginning?
Spectral Procession and Wrath of God can both create card advantage. But that is only a potential. Playing a Spectral Procession isn't "ZOMG 3-FOR-1'd!!!" You have 3 creatures, and the potential to generate card advantage from them, if your opponent is forced to deal with them individually. But when your opponent plays Wrath of God, he used 1 card (the Wrath) to deal with your 1 card (the Spectral Procession), assuming the board was otherwise empty for the sake of simplicity. Same goes for Maelstrom Pulse.
This isn't to say that Spectral cannot generate card advantage; if you manage to trade two of the tokens for opposing creatures, then you've just 2-for-1'd, and you get a 1/1 flyer to boot!
Both Pulse and Procession both have the POTENTIAL to generate card advantage, but don't inherently do so.
Your insistent emphasis on the negative is telling. If it is true that an omnipotent God necessitates determinism, then God is indeed responsible for all of our misery -- but also for all of our happiness. God's design includes the unfettered joy of children at play, the thrill of scientific discovery, and the ecstacy of love-making. Truly, many people seem born only to suffer; but others live apparently charmed lives. This is sufficient to claim that if God exists, He may be capricious; but He is surely no unmitigated tyrant or sadist. As the faithful have long declared, "The Lord works in mysterious ways." And in that mystery, in that vast gulf between human understanding and omniscience, there remains the possibility that God will be proved benevolent in the end.
Benevolence is not "I'm more nice than mean." That's just a normal person. Whether God's sadism and tyranny is unmitigated or not is not relevant; he is not benevolent if he is sadistic or tyrranical at all. Benevolence is, when taken to an extreme (which is the very definition of God, is it not? Infinite ~whatever~) "I'll always do what's best for you."
So why then is any suffering necessary? If God is omnipotent and benevolent, we would live in an idyllic universe where we would have no "lessons" to learn and no "tests" to pass. There's no need for anyone to sin or go to hell other than for God to make them, assuming that he is these two things.
Basically, the stack works in first in, last out order (many remember it FILO). This means that the first spell or ability that is played goes on the stack first, then the active player gets a chance to respond, then the non-active (or each non-active, if you're playing with more than two people) player gets the same chance. If neither do anything, the first spell resolves. However, if either player decides to respond, the second spell or ability played goes on the stack "on top" of the first one. It's kind of like a big dogpile, and when everyone is done piling on, the guy on top has to get off before anyone else can get up (or resolve, as it were).
So back to Puppeteer and Icy:
Your opponent plays the Icy Manipulator ability (paying all costs at this time; in this case, paying one mana and tapping the Icy) to tap your Puppeteer. It goes on the stack. So, the stack looks like this:
---Icy Manipulator's "Tap Puppeteer"
Then, your opponent has a chance to respond. In this situation, he has no response, and so passes priority (assuming he is the active player--it is his turn). After he passes priority, you have a chance to respond before the Icy Manipulator's ability resolves. This is when you would play Puppeteer's ability, paying the blue mana and tapping your Puppeteer. After you do, the stack would be like this:
---Puppeteer's "Tap or untap target creature"
---Icy Manipulator's "Tap Puppeteer"
Since the Puppeteer's ability is on top, it resolves (gets off the dogpile) first, tapping or untapping whichever target creature you chose when you announced the ability. Then you both get priority to try something else AGAIN before Icy Manipulator's ability resolves. In your situation, neither player did anything so then the Icy's ability resolves (this is when the tricky stuff often happens). Unfortunately for your opponent, the Icy's ability still resolves, tapping an already-tapped Puppeteer. Now the stack is empty.
Let me know if that makes sense/if you have further questions.
And if you actually draw by going to time? What then? And even if these rules are implemented, going undefeated still likely allows you to draw/lose into top 8.
I wouldn't pay it. It's about $35 more (CAD) than I would pay for a box.
Any "real competitor" will ask you for your concession.
There's no entitlement on either side. If you feel like conceding and letting a guy into top 8, go for it. If not, fine. If you want to see who he'd be bumping out and then decide, you're completely within your rights to do so. But getting a concession is a much more sure win than trying to play it out. In my opinion, if you don't try to get a concession in these situations, you're not trying hard enough.
This is not to say that bribery is okay, or anything like that. The decision is firmly in the hands of the possibly-conceding player.
EDIT: I must say, sportsmanship is far too subjective a value for me to base my decision on; just look at this thread, there are people saying the sportsman will scoop, while others say the sportsman must play every match.
Okay. Let me get this straight....
I'm going to open a game store.
You can only use cards that you buy from me.
How am I going to enforce this? Stamp every card I sell? Make players open their packs in front of me so I can stamp them?
If I do this, the values of the merchandise is likely decreased drastically.
To sell this less-valuable product, I'll have to decrease prices. Then I probably won't make it as a business.
Idk, just seems like a pretty ridiculous idea that the only cards you should use in your shop are those that you got from that shop. After all, I sincerely doubt if enough standard staples are opened in one shop to support a healthy metagame.
Brick and Mortar stores are, unfortunately, forced to resort to selling food and drink, and, as my local store does very successfully, LAN time on quality computers. The store is open 24/7/365, with employees that are enjoyable, if not quirky, and some of the most knowledgeable around. The store runs weekly FNM, multiple drafts, and weekly vintage tournaments, along with PTQs and GPTs when they are scheduled. They also run their own prereleases.
They have been successful enough to expand into another space next door, and are hoping to do so again after their neighbor's lease is up.
There's no reason a store can't be successful, even if it almost never sells boxes or packs for much of a profit.
In many tournaments, you can make the 7 rounds practically 5 for yourself if you go 5-0. However, those last two rounds are often very important if you went 4-1 or even 3-2 in the first 5, depending on how many people there are. If, at the end of the day, 17 points will get you into top 8 (the 17 is an arbitrary amount, changes depending on number of people in tourney/number of rounds etc.), then what's the difference between going:
W
W
W
W
W
ID
ID
and going:
D
W
W
W
W
D
W
IMO, forcing players to try to win is a bit too iron-fisted for my taste, and if you don't force players to try to win, what's to stop them from playing to a draw? They can both just play land-go for the whole game, choose not to attack with creatures, etc... Why would any player who can get into top 8, or past the day 2 cuts for a PT, etc. ever take the risk of playing? Sure, I suppose top 8 pairings are affected.. but that almost never factors into things as it's still dependent on other results.
To be honest, it sounds to me like people don't like the fact that the top players don't have to risk losses, which shuts them out of top 8, or the wrong side of cuts, etc. Tough luck, they earned it; if you want to guarantee yourself a spot, play better.
When you look at the whole situation, it's quite clear that it is still a level playing field. I don't see a problem.
I'm wondering if anyone else has seen the font, either. These had better not be real changes... otherwise it'll be disappointing.
Game 2, having lost the first, one of the players plays Sower on my friend's Reveillark, and proceeds to beat him down for the win. At this point it's tied 1-1. The players shuffle up for game 3 and begin. At some point during game 3, the opponent has one more Reveillark in hand than he was running in his deck, at which point he exclaims, "Well, this can't be right..." Upon further exploration, he comes to realize that they're both using the same sleeves! My friend's Reveillark was in the opponents deck. Being the honest players that they are, they called the judge, who was perplexed at the situation. It had never come up before.
He went to the computer to see if there was precedent, but couldn't find any. So, he gave the only ruling he could: Game loss to each player for illegal decks. This resulted in both players not only losing the match, but also missing top 8. The look on their faces was absolutely priceless.
18
Grade level:
High School Senior
How long have you been playing MTG:
10 years
How did you get started?
Parents bought me the Starter beginner set
Time per week spent playing:
12-15, excepting large events (GP and PT, prereleases, etc.)
How much do you spend per week on MTG/CCGs?
$25 max, usually.
What do you like most about MTG & CCGs?
Thinking man's game, it entertains me. Just going and hanging out with all the players can be wildly entertaining.
How would you say MTG has helped you? Has in had any negative impacts?
I have gotten in trouble with the parents a couple times for staying out too late after FNM, but that's more my fault. It has, though, kept my brain agile and gives me something entertaining to do.
How do you do in school? Gradewise?
I'm in the top 10 of my graduating class of over 700. I'm a National Merit Scholar.
Are you an active participant in class discussion?
Or laid back/quiet?
I usually dominate class discussions actually. It's gotten to the point where I have to refrain from speaking so other people will actually talk.
Since the deck's made up almost exclusively of fliers (everything but Mutavault flies), they just fly over and whack your planeswalker to death in most (all) cases.
Hm. I think I agree with this, just what I'm calling "Potential" CA you're calling "Virtual". It's really the same thing. The CA (or lack of) generated by spectral is determined later, by what happens in the game.
I don't know about you, but for me, I'd happily give up any form of choice in order to live in eternal bliss. Sounds like one hell of a really awesome ride.
What positive utility can be derived from suffering (if it teaches us a lesson, or makes us appreciate something more) when we can simply be instilled with these values or made to appreciate something as we should from the very beginning?
This isn't to say that Spectral cannot generate card advantage; if you manage to trade two of the tokens for opposing creatures, then you've just 2-for-1'd, and you get a 1/1 flyer to boot!
Both Pulse and Procession both have the POTENTIAL to generate card advantage, but don't inherently do so.
Benevolence is not "I'm more nice than mean." That's just a normal person. Whether God's sadism and tyranny is unmitigated or not is not relevant; he is not benevolent if he is sadistic or tyrranical at all. Benevolence is, when taken to an extreme (which is the very definition of God, is it not? Infinite ~whatever~) "I'll always do what's best for you."
So why then is any suffering necessary? If God is omnipotent and benevolent, we would live in an idyllic universe where we would have no "lessons" to learn and no "tests" to pass. There's no need for anyone to sin or go to hell other than for God to make them, assuming that he is these two things.
Also Birds of Paradise.
Alright. We'll use your Puppeteer and Icy Manipulator example.
Basically, the stack works in first in, last out order (many remember it FILO). This means that the first spell or ability that is played goes on the stack first, then the active player gets a chance to respond, then the non-active (or each non-active, if you're playing with more than two people) player gets the same chance. If neither do anything, the first spell resolves. However, if either player decides to respond, the second spell or ability played goes on the stack "on top" of the first one. It's kind of like a big dogpile, and when everyone is done piling on, the guy on top has to get off before anyone else can get up (or resolve, as it were).
So back to Puppeteer and Icy:
Your opponent plays the Icy Manipulator ability (paying all costs at this time; in this case, paying one mana and tapping the Icy) to tap your Puppeteer. It goes on the stack. So, the stack looks like this:
---Icy Manipulator's "Tap Puppeteer"
Then, your opponent has a chance to respond. In this situation, he has no response, and so passes priority (assuming he is the active player--it is his turn). After he passes priority, you have a chance to respond before the Icy Manipulator's ability resolves. This is when you would play Puppeteer's ability, paying the blue mana and tapping your Puppeteer. After you do, the stack would be like this:
---Puppeteer's "Tap or untap target creature"
---Icy Manipulator's "Tap Puppeteer"
Since the Puppeteer's ability is on top, it resolves (gets off the dogpile) first, tapping or untapping whichever target creature you chose when you announced the ability. Then you both get priority to try something else AGAIN before Icy Manipulator's ability resolves. In your situation, neither player did anything so then the Icy's ability resolves (this is when the tricky stuff often happens). Unfortunately for your opponent, the Icy's ability still resolves, tapping an already-tapped Puppeteer. Now the stack is empty.
Let me know if that makes sense/if you have further questions.