MTG Salvation

Comment Hidden

They're going to put 10 different arts for Giant Spider in M14, and make a mat for each one.

None of Into the Roil resolves. Upon resolution, Into the Roil checks to see if its targets are still legal. Since *ALL* of its targets are now illegal, the rules of the game counter Into the Roil.

Comment Hidden

What do you mean "Creatures with populate"? If a creature has "(Cost): Populate" then yes, Pithing Needle would stop that from being activated. Pithing Needle can also stop Loxodon Warhammer's equip ability, but it won't unequip or neutralize it if it is already equipped.

Quote from Loomis2459

They should poll on these things. Are the cards being spoiled early going to increase the amount of cards you buy, decrease the amount of cards you buy, or not affect the amount of cards you were planning to buy at all from Return to Ravnica?

But people don't know that, or at least they don't know well enough to answer that honestly in a survey / poll. The marketing gurus know how to make something sell, and have designed a method of spoiling that increases sales. Marketing knows people better than people know themselves. Marketing research can identify with high likelihood when a shopper at a grocery store is pregnant, before the shopper even knows. Target got in trouble for that a while back because they would send out the expectant-mothers brochure to pregnant women who didn't yet know they were pregnant. Point is, marketing people are smart, and know how to move a product.

So, ruining that plan marketing created will, generally, decrease the number of sales due to excitement, leaving the set to stand on its own for sales. With a very powerful set like New Phyrexia, that was fine (so much good stuff). With a set like RTR, again... probably fine (shocks and fun multi-colored stuff... always moves well. Plus, it's Ravnica. The name sells by itself). If Dark Ascension or AVR had been spoiled that way, it would have negatively affected sales.

Quote from jeaok

I just feel that more swiss rounds gives more of a chance for the good players to rise back up in the standings

I agree with this point, it absolutely gives people a chance to rise back up... and in a world where time constraints don't matter, and player fatigue never kicks in... I'd be game. However, logistically... what a nightmare. Tacking on three rounds of swiss is like tacking on an extra three and a half to four hours on a major tournament. Top 8's generally don't go to what would be time each round, and can conclude pretty swiftly in some cases - last PTQ I attended, top 8 took just over an hour to conclude. If you're doing that to a PTQ, your attendance will plummet. Your LGS is going to have to pay out a lot more to their employees. The judges get worn down and might start making bad calls. Costs rise. Player enjoyment goes down. I know at the end of round 9 at a grand prix as a player, I'm drained. I'm done. Those last two rounds are on the edge of 'not fun' because I'm just so exhausted. And you want to ask that all players do that?

You could theoretically get to a point at the end of your first extra swiss round where your leader could just scoop his next two matches, and still walk away the winner of the whole thing. It's not too far out of the realm of possibility. People play this game for fun, but a 10 or 11 round tournament in one day? The fun is gone.

Comment Hidden

If you think a player is cheating call a judge.

Comment Hidden

Quote from Believeinapathy

This thread right now, wow...

I think he just pulled a Vraska in a pack, and he feels on top of the world now. We've all had ours. But just looking over this thread, one must wonder how he managed to write this in one sitting. This is more detailed than my term paper for college.

Foil Koren Full Art Textless Misscut Signed Alpha Crimped Testprint Judge Promo Guru Black Lotus.

Quote from Scotty Styles

Lizard, your answer contradicted itself... first you say it's ok, then you say don't do it.

At a competitive REL, the spectators should not be trying to give the answer. I as a judge would hate to approach a table, or get called over, just to find that the spectator had inadvertently committed outside assistance because they gave the wrong scenario, or mentioned something they shouldn't have while delivering their completely unofficial 'ruling'. I really don't want to deliver a match loss to somebody when they were trying to be helpful. Even if you 'know' you're right, would you want to risk a match loss on accidentally pointing out the wrong thing?

Pause the match, call a judge over, then tell the judge what you saw. Don't do anything else. It's simple, and the game gets fixed in the same fashion with no risk to the helpful spectator.

I agree with this. I phrased the post badly at first. I hope the edits have clarified this a little bit. What I was trying to say is that it's not ALWAYS a disaster if a spectator intervenes, and sometimes it can even be beneficial. But this is the exception! When I said it would be okay in this situation, what I meant is that the outcome would be okay, not that the action of the spectator should be endorsed.

The key phrase is "As a matter of policy, players shouldn't try to fix situations, or even explain them, because they usually don't know how to do so without giving outside assistance, while judges (hopefully) do."

It's a Divine Verdict with tomatoes and sour cream. mmm.

Netdeckers. Not a shred of originality.

People who use counterspells. c*. f*. b*.

And removal. Christ almighty on a crutch. How cheap can you get, bastard?

People who call a judge for every little thing. Dude, if you can't remember how many lands I've played this turn, then obviously I haven't played any. So what if its turn 4 and I have 5 lands in play? You're not paying attention, so it's your fault!

Players who wear tuxes. Get a life.

And winning! Don't get me strarted on people who win against me! Ugh.

People who play homebrews. Get it through your head: you suck.

Quantum

You do realize that 2 of the people you are screaming at quite loudly are the people who wrote the damn policy in the first place. You do not know it better than they do.

I repeat there is nothing in this thread that warrants an automatic assumption of cheating fraud in any of King Pun's posts and your screaming that there is does not come off well.

Yes King Pun has stated that the blessings of nature was cast at a point that you can't cast it for its miracle cost, that is it he has not stated which turn it was cast. You have based your entire argument on that it was not pumped by the blessings of nature and KP demanded the Fettergeist be sacrificed in response to that spell being cast. There is nothing to support that assertion, on the contrary KP states that a swing from the Fettergeist would have been enough for his opponent to win so it is more likely that the assertion from everyone else is correct the blessings of nature had been cast in a previous turn and the +1/+1 counters were still on it and the trigger was remembered in the draw step after the card had been done for the turn.

This is also the first point that you can mention the missed trigger so there is nothing more sinister than a bog standard missed trigger issue to deal with. You insisting other wise speaks volumes as to your approach to judging which IMO is not going in the correct direction.

Quantom

Go back and re read the opening post again. There is absolutely nothing there or in any of King Puns other posts to make Cheating fraud a possibility and this is coming from reading the exact same rules documents you have.

Quote from King Pun

fettergeist

I was playing a guy and he drew a card and then paid the mana and I was like no you have to sacrifice it because you didnt do it during your upkeep (even though it was an obvious choice to keep it since he blessing of natured it and could have swung out for lethal that turn. He gets very upset and say are you seriously going to be a jerk like that and almost got to a physically aggressive manner. Was I right to make this call or no?

you can move this to rulings if you do not find this appropriate, was not sure on which one to put it in

The relevant bit is bolded the bit in Italics is a red herring as it occurred ina prior turn. KP's opponent drew his card, remembered the triggered ability and then attempted to pay its cost. King Pun is well within his rights to have the creature binned and has brought it up at the correct time. At worse the only penalty to be applied here is a warning for a missing trigger on the part of King Pun's opponent.