MTG Salvation

Nothing has changed about Progenitus, it still cannot be damaged, enchanted/equipped, blocked or targeted.

No, you are not required to stop a loop with a spell or ability from outside the loop.

You are correct, it would not come back because it had a -1/-1 counter on it when it died which means Persist will not trigger.

Untapped, you control two or fewer other lands.

Quote from Sam I am

People bring up that detail as though It's notable or something.

If he did it to someone who wasn't a SCG employee, than would that be okay?

No.

Any situation that impacts the enjoyment of players at our tournaments is taken very seriously. If someone is creating an environment that is making you uncomfortable please bring it to the attention of a tournament official (Judge or any of the Staff on stage).

We want all players to enjoy being at our events and will address such situations as soon as they are brought to our attention.

I'm not sure how we've gone from:

Quote from sage.sam

Also, as a long-time judge in this area, I know the reputation of many of the regular players. I know from experience with this player that this is consistent with how he operates in getting decks at the last minute. So, as it happens, the answer is that yes--it is quite believable that this happened exactly as presented.

To:

Quote from Magic Mike

Yeah, he played an illegal deck and is buddies with the Head Judge. That totally trumps every Magic strategy article ever written.

Being familiar with the habits of a local player and using that information while performing an investigation IS NOT the same as letting someone cheat because they are your friend. Frankly I find it VERY offensive to even suggest that, especially if you don't even know the parties involved.

Seriously, without video evidence or a statement to the effect of "I am a cheaty cheatyface", what would someone have to do to get DQ'd for cheating?

Might I suggest actually cheat, which is obviously not what happened here. The HJ stated that he investigated and found it reasonable that the player could have made the mistakes he made unintentionally.

Quote from AsLan^

I know when I'm sideboarding that I look through my deck. Maybe doing it once I wouldn't notice six copies of a card but five times (at a minimum) defies belief!

It really doesn't. I think you overestimate the attention to detail and perceptiveness of an average magic player, especially one who isn't sitting in his armchair judging people over the internet.

Quote from AsLan^

Assuming the wrong deck story is true, do you also believe that your friend failed to notice the additional archdruids in his deck while sideboarding every round?

Are you really that naive?

Do you really think players count every card in their deck while sideboarding? I know I only pay attention to the cards I am planning to remove as I flip through.

@Valarin the amount of incorrect information in your post is mind boggling. Please check your facts and try again.

Correct on both points.

Graft modifies how the creature enters the battlefield so the counters are placed before humility applies.

After it is on the battlefield it will be a 6/6 (1/1+5 +1/+1 counters) creature with no abilities which means it can attack/block normally. It also does not have the graft ability to move counters.

Correct, the prevention occurs as the damage is dealt and combat damage is dealt simultaneously (assuming no first/double strike).

No experienced Magic player, no matter how long they've been out of the game, would make so many obvious mistakes

Bahahahahaha, have you ever actually judged a tournament before, let alone one at a competitive or professional REL such as a GP or PT? There are plenty of 'obvious mistakes' that get made by people who are good at Magic all the time.

The last M14 team draft I did included multiple GP winners including Shahar and of the eight of us, four of us assumed Solemn Offering was an instant and treated it as such until one of the other players pointed it out. There was no ill intent, it was just that we had made assumptions about the card and not thought about it at all.

As for the, 'The rules need to be tougher!' bit. I agree to a degree, I think people are blowing this out of proportion because the guy won though. Back in the old days you DID get DQ'd for a lot of the same stuff you get warnings/GL's fix it for nowadays. Here's the problem with going Judge Dredd on players - It alienates newer players in a big way.

Quote from AdamM

Someone posted in another thread about MM that, they were supposed to have enough MM product to support up to 6,000 players.

I wonder if the source for those numbers/facts was wrong, or if WotC doesn't want all the product put into the market for one reason or another.

Product is not the only constraint. There's also the desire to give the tournament-goers a pleasant experience, which means not 5 to a table, hour-long round turnarounds and no judge within 200 yards.

The conspiracy theory is goofy.

Bring a Sherpa with you.

Quote from travelsonic

If you have a tournament system with rules - the enforcement of said rules should make sense. They should be consistent, and consistently enforced. Changing some punishment may be necessary, but the reasoning should make sense too otherwise people will, right or wrong, question the way it is run, and when that happens the TRUST in the system is hurt - and that is not good.

While I agree with that statement, I don't think that's what is happening here. Keep in mind that one of the reasons that a player is suspended for any amount is due to the risk that a player will behave in a significantly detrimental fashion. The length of time that suspension lasts is based on a few factors, but certainly there is consideration of the player's actual remorse as a result of the original situation, as well as even subsequent behavior. But part of it is to ensure that the player won't represent a risk when he or she comes back to play in events; especially in an event where that person can be highly visible.

That being said, no one has actually censored the player in this situation. No one told him what he could or couldn't say, and he's the one who deleted his own post. Instead, he's been censured for what he did say, and there is a long history of people being held accountable for their words in a public setting. That may seem a fine line, but there is a difference in being censored and being censured.

The NFL routinely fines or suspends players who represent the league badly. League of Legends holds pros to a higher standard.

WotC supports a pro magic scene for one reason only: it helps promote the game. Having a cheating jerk as a pro magic player hurts them. They're well within their rights to suspend him for representing the community poorly.

Now, it IS a slippery slope... but the thing is, the argument "Don't do X because it's a slippery slope" is a fallacy. It does not follow that if they ban him for being an obvious jerk while already serving a suspension for cheating , eventually they'll end up banning average players because they'll be so overly sensitive that even average players who get frustrated will set them off. As long as they stick to only punishing for situations like Bertoncini's, they're fine.

It's not a DQ. It's not theft. Do not call the police or the DCI.

Really. Please. Please stop telling people it's theft and a DQ and a DCI suspension and whatever other overreaction. If someone decides they want to keep the pool they opened, and walk away, then we do what the Tournament Rules tell us to do: they lose round 1, and get dropped from the tournament after that. That's it.

Quote from Commons

Because i'm not arguing what the policy is. I'm arguing if it immoral to break it.

Then I really can't argue with your opinion on the matter of the morality of following/not following a policy. (Though I don't understand what exactly is "immoral" about the policy.) I would reiterate what I feel are the reasonable risks of deciding to break a rule you disagree with, as well as recommend petitioning WotC to change policy rather than just break it. I'd also prefer you didn't recommend others break a policy you personally disagree with, especially as I think you do understate the risk involved (or at least the consequences).

But, aside from that, I think your opinion is your own and you are entitled to it. Otherwise, the core questions have been answered from my perspective.

Quote from Karric

if I Reanimate Eternal Witness, can I get the former spell back?

I wasn't sure how the stack resolves. The spell resolves fully, go to the yard, then Witness triggers? In which case, reanimate should be in my yard, and fetchable correct?

I was surprised MagicCards.info didn't have a rules blurb for this scenario, seems like something of interest.

That works. As you say the spell resolves fully, and goes to the graveyard. Then Triggers are put on the stack, and the Reanimate is a legal target.