MTG Salvation

Quote from Cardoc

That's pretty ridiculous that the judge didn't even take the time to verify the legality of the card. There has to be some recourse here, at least in sanctioned events. If you disagree with a judge's ruling, can you not escalate to the head judge? If you still disagree, it would seem that you should have the ability to require them to breakout the actual rulebook to prove your infraction.

I basically have zeo experience at judged events stricter than a prerelease. Can a more seasoned player comment on this?

You can always appeal a floor judge's ruling to the head judge, but in this case since Meyou said "the judge" and it was a small Vintage tournament, I'm inclined to believe there was only one judge at the event. I don't believe that, by the rules, the judge is required to give you a good reason/show documentation - and you're expected to comply with the HJ's ruling, no questions asked. The best you can do is contact the DCI for an investigation of misconduct.

What was the judge's reasoning for DQing you for 4 Exhumes?

Re: the crying little girl: I can maybe understand if it's an unrated tournament or FNM - but anyone who walks into a "Pro Tour Qualifier" or "Grand Prix" and then whines because they didn't know XYZ is the best deck in the room gets no sympathy from me. At the very least, put some thought into your sideboard.

(What am I saying? Magic players are smart. We know that.)

Quote from wintermute2517

It comes from the Xbox DOTP game...

Seriously? Enough people have tried to play Deluge post-blockers to know of the existence of this bug?

My theory is that people who haven't internalized the myriad quirks of Magic tend to look at the combat phase holistically, instead of sequentially. A creature has to be untapped in order to block, so you can't play a creature's {T} ability then block with it; thus "logically," you can't block with a creature then play its {T} ability.

It's the same principle behind "Why is your Drudge Skeletons still blocking my Runeclaw Bear after I cast Jump on the Bear? It has flying now!" (Which is another example of the inadequacies of reminder text - it should say instead "CW/oFoR can't block [this] - but the distinction will only matter in a minuscule amount of cases, and the "evergreen abilities" don't have reminder text in M10 anyhow.) Players look at a game state with a tapped blocker and think it must be illegal - so the creature was removed from combat, and doesn't deal combat damage, somehow.

('Grats on L3, Eli Shiffrin!)

Quote from TheArchitect

I outsource my creatures from Mexico. It's cheaper.

Mexico
Plane - Earth
Creature spells cost 2 less to cast. Abilities of creatures cost 2 less to activate unless they're mana abilities.
When you roll {C}, all Assembly-Workers go on strike.

What does it look like when a creature is summoned? I've honestly never though about it. Odds are, it'll be dead soon enough.

(Okay, I do have a little mental imagery processing space. Mostly it's reserved for Equipment. Funny things, Equipment.)

On the one hand, this sounds like something I might be interested in since I don't have any Constructed decks of my own (mostly borrowing from friends, and the occasional draft) and I could use some more high-quality basic lands.

On the other...the marketing focus on new players makes me question how good the pre-selected cards are going to be. I'm expecting a ton of singletons with quality between Angel's Feather and Pacifism, maybe a Lightning Bolt or two. Since I don't have a local store with a "reject draft bin" or what have you, part of my $20 will be going to cards just taking up space at the bottom of the box. In which case I would rather play two drafts or a Sealed instead.

I'm somewhat curious about the "dueling tips and expert advice"...did they hire Pro players to write this? Or will this be the basic "most decks should play 20-28 lands" stuff?

The question about the 2HG planar deck concerned the nature of the command zone. From a cursory reading of the rules:
* The command zone is a single zone shared by all players.
* The owner of an EDH general is the player whose deck contained the card when the game began.
* The owner/controller of the shared planar deck is the primary player of the team who rolled the {P} symbol last (or who took the first turn).

Re: Eldrazi and Emeria: You can also re-sac the same creature over and over again if you stack the triggers so Emeria's resolves first. Preferably a creature with some abuseable EtB or LtB ability.

Quote from Rescinder

What the heck kind of ridiculous garbage is this? I ran into this weird 'rule' when I tried to use Sorin Markov on an opponent in 2HG when my opponents were at 29 life. Rather than the actual result which should have been to set that player at 10 life, meaning the team's life total becomes 10, the judge cited some crazy math that resulted in their life total becoming 25... loss of four life? From Sorin's second ability?

Correct.

CR 806.9c If an effect would set a single player’s life total to a number, that player’s individual life total becomes that number. The team’s life total is adjusted by the amount of life that player gained or lost.

By that logic, if I Fireball one opponent in 2hg for 30, it'll only reduce his 'portion' of the supposedly shared life total, leaving the team alive at 15 life. Absolutely ridiculous.

Incorrect.

CR 806.9. Damage, loss of life, and gaining life happen to each player individually. The result is applied to the team’s shared life total.

In your example, Player A will receive 30 damage while Player B will receive no damage (and thus any abilities of permanents he controls that say "when you are dealt damage" won't trigger, not that it matters). 30 life is deducted from A and B's shared life total. The game adjusts each player's life total accordingly, sees that A and B are both at 0 life, and they lose.

Of course, you're free to play casual 2HG using whatever house-rules you like.

Quote from TheOnlyOne652089

3) I have a "shade" in play, tap 3 lands and use the ability, without telling my opponent, i just tap the lands as its best as an "extra" mana for some other spell, my opponent just sees my spell, or another ability, and i don't tell anything about that i use the +1/+1 of the shade, than attack and say i used the ability.

I'm not quite sure what you're aiming at with the other examples, but this one doesn't work...if you tap lands and don't announce you're doing anything with the mana, then move to combat, I'm within my rights to assume you floated 3 mana and now your mana pool is empty. If you do play the Shade's ability, you yield priority to your opponent after the first one goes on the stack, unless you explicitly retain priority to stack multiple activations on top of each other. If you play something with mana remaining in your mana pool, I'm pretty sure you're required to tell the opponent what's floating, but I can't find that rule now.

(Edit: CR 106.4a.)
106.4a If a player passes priority (see rule 115) while there is mana in his or her mana pool, that player announces what mana is there. If any mana remains in a player’s mana pool after he or she spends mana to pay a cost, that player announces what mana is still there.

Huh, reminds me of my most recent playgroup (I don't know if you can call them 'friends' by your definition). Lack of proximity + lack of money + only shared interests Magic* = lack of time/effort spent on the relationship. Ah well.

* and video games, board games, etc.

Edited to add: How I hate the phrase "BFF" so much. Brings back bad memories of high school.

Article doesn't have a proper comments box, so unfortunately I had to make a forum account.

"The money at the large events can be nice, but the prizes don’t cover medical insurance, a college fund, and escorts. Being able to afford the classy kind of escorts takes some major dollars. One cannot skimp on the escorts because they are needed to distract my opponents during matches."

Lol!

This next part is going to be a bit rambly and tl;dr:

Your points at the end are all good. I'd say that is the essence of what it means to be a pro: the process, rather than the reward at the end. Not only do you have to deckbuild, playtest, scope the metagame, etc., you have to enjoy it. If it's merely a tedious grind in between actually playing Magic, you can still be a pro, but you shouldn't. A couple K in cash and prizes isn't worth it.

What is a Pro? By my admittedly harsh and somewhat arbitrary standards, a "good" player is one who can place at a PTQ. Someone who has risen above the masses of merely average players, and may even have matched up against a few pros himself. The next step is placing at a Pro Tour, which to me shows that person has the skill and the dedication to reach a point that most Magic players will never even aspire to, and earned a nice wad of cash at that. Now, he may be destined to win one Pro Tour then fade into obscurity...but just for that moment, he has proven himself among the best of the Magic playing world, and that to me shows a "Pro" level of skill.

On the other hand, when one considers Magic to be more than just another hobby, when one puts as much effort into it as into a full-time job...that is "going pro."

Why don't Pros get recognition? Magic is still regarded as an eccentric hobby by most of the sane world, and unlike games such as chess, is only 15 years old. Yes there are exceptions like Fatal1ty, who has his own hardware line, and Starcraft, the national sport of South Korea, but consider that here in America where it was made, 90% of the population have never even heard of it, or think of it as some "kid's video game." Magic has a long way to go before any national or televised recognition is forthcoming. It's simply not mainstream enough.

And let's face it: Magic is a horrible spectator sport.

Compare to other sports, like football and poker. I may not know what a touchdown or a straight is, but I can visually understand guys running into each other and throwing a ball around, and I can process the fundamentals of betting, and that higher numbered cards are better than lower ones. To a normal person, a game of pro Magic looks like two guys putting funny-looking cards on a table, continually turning them sideways and right-side up or putting them off to the side, and occasional grunts and hand gestures that are probably priority passes. Judging from videos on Youtube, there is no camera in the world that can show the entire table at once, yet still zoom in close enough to enable reading of the cards. The end result is an extremely complex and at times bizarre game with a visually unengaging presentation. Even assuming a working knowledge of the rules and enlarged visuals ala Magic Online, prospective spectators still have to be able to identify each card on the table, read the text of the ones they don't know, and follow along with the pros' high speed of play. The audience who would be able to enjoy pro matches is so small that the existing outlets for match coverage (Wizards' website, Youtube videos) are easily sufficient.

I'm not so sure that it's a problem exclusive to Magic, though. How many people who claim to be sports fans can name every member on their favorite team? For every athlete who makes into into their sport's hall of fame, there are thousands of low draft picks who sit on the bench half their professional lives (and make more money during one season than a Magic pro will make in his lifetime, but that's another issue entirely).

It also doesn't help that Magic players achieve fame partly through their decks: ProsBloom, TEPS, Ravager Affinity, Teachings Control (with a shout-out to Paul Sligh, possibly the only Magic player to have an archetype named after himself). I don't know who invented these, but I have a pretty good idea of what cards are in them. We remember "The $16,000 Lightning Helix" but not Craig Jones. We know who Dark Confidant is, but not "Bob." We saw Cascade Swans, Elf Combo, Jund Aggro, and Boat Brew in the top 8 of some tournament or another, but we don't remember who played them. Such is the nature of Magic.

What else do we want to know about pro players, anyway? Their affairs with celebrity heiresses and history of drug abuse?

So, the short version:
1) There are multiple usages of the word "Pro."
1a) Someone who does well at a Pro Tour can be said to have a "Pro" level of skill.
1b) Someone who regards Magic seriously enough to commit to regularly attending Professional tournaments can call himself a "Pro."
2) Magic pros will not gain sponsorships because Magic is still an obscure, nerdy game.
3) Magic will not be televised because the 5CC mirror is dreadfully boring.
4) Magic pros aren't all that different from pro sports players in that the vast majority never become well known, even among fans of the game/sport.
5) Winning decks and archetypes will be remembered long after their pilots have faded into obscurity.