« first day (2033 days earlier)   

3:23 PM
 
4:15 PM
@diego I am slightly disappointed. The remaining lands are just a mediocre two-color cycle. And I was hoping for a Berserk reprint, so that I could have one with the Oracle text
 
4:55 PM
@murgatroid99 That would have been nice to have. Also Damnation...
 
I am still glad to get Karakas, Hydroblast, and Sylvan Library
Also, a greater printing of Oracle text Swords to Plowshares
 
5:36 PM
I am sad that there exists no foil Howling Mine that fails to mention the untapped bit
 
You want Howling Mines with the old text?
 
Yes
The new text gives away information
It's free information, but information nonetheless
 
Deliberately using a card whose wording deviates from the oracle text for the purpose of misleading/tricking your opponent seems unsportsmanlike to me
 
Look at it this way:
If I use the old text, I get to choose whether I exhibit what you consider to be sportsmanlike behavior.
If I use the new text, I don't get to choose.
I'm always going to favor the card with more options regardless of how I intend to exercise those options
 
5:54 PM
Saying that you just want the option to mislead your opponent about free information doesn't sound much better.
 
Have you ever told someone that you have a card when you really don't?
 
I don't know what you mean
 
You're wrong anyway. Having the option to mislead someone is not as unsportsmanlike as actually misleading someone.
 
@Rainbolt Sure. If you never exercise the option, then it's like you never had it. And you do, then it's just as bad. But purposely choosing to leave that option open implies that you intend to exercise it at some point.
 
I think it is called for in specific situations
 
6:02 PM
Can you give an example?
 
Sure. Probably the easiest example is if my opponent pulls the exact same thing on me, and then calls me on it. At that point, I adjust my definition of sporstmanlike to include anything that is legal.
 
So, you would use cards with the old wording, and then when you play a Howling Mine, you would explicitly mention the actual errata unless they've already used a similar trick?
 
Okay, I provided one specific situation where I would play like that. You then concluded that it was the only situation where I would play like that. "You would [...] unless [...]."
So just to be clear, there are numerous situations where I would play like that
And in fact that is how I have been playing for some time now, and have never had an issue with it
It's not exactly something you can do anything about unless you counter the Gigadrowse copies, which just puts you down a card anyway.
Real example (this actually happened to me):
Opponent has a Treetop Village and Scavenging Ooze. I am at 2 life with Cryptic Command in hand. He offers to move to the beginning of combat. I say okay. He swings with his Scavenging Ooze. I say "Whoah, hang on a second. We are in the beginning of combat." He calls a judge and the judge agrees. I can tell that his actions were calculated, and so for the rest of that game I am playing competitively (or as you call it, "unsportsmanlike").
 
6:17 PM
It's not like I said "playing competitively is unsportsmanlike"
 
I know, but you made a blanket statement that attempting to mislead your opponent is always unsportsmanlike.
And my counter is that against a competitive player, it's simply competitive, not unsportsmanlike.
 
@Rainbolt I didn't say that either. I was specifically talking about misleading your opponent about the Oracle text of cards.
I think it steps dangerously close to "Players may not represent derived or free information incorrectly."
But I don't think it actually violates that rule, because it doesn't involve explicit statements, which is why I said "unsportsmanlike" instead of "against the rules"
 
We're in a loop, and I'm not going to repeat myself
 
And you seem to be arguing against a position I never took, so I guess I have nothing else to say
 
No, I just didn't type enough words, so you repeated yourself
I said "misleading" instead of "misleading about Oracle text"
 
6:26 PM
You made a false statement, which made me think that you had misunderstood what I was trying to say. So I tried to make my point differently, to clarify.
 
Has my false statement been clarified to your satisfaction now?
 
6:54 PM
I think this simply boils down to a difference of opinion. "Sportsmanlike" is subjective. In my opinion, there are many tiers of play, and you can't simply point to something and say "This is unsportsmanlike." without also specifying at what tiers you consider it so. You may not even play Magic at a level where such an action is ever sportsmanlike.

Beginner: Offer free and derived information without being prompted. Protect your opponent from stupid mistakes.
Intermediate: Only offer free and derived information when prompted. Offer information that requires intricate rules knowledge witho
So when you say "That action is unsportsmanlike [at all levels of play].", I hear "That action is unsportsmanlike [at all levels that I have played]."
 
I basically disagree with your first paragraph. In the general sense, being a jerk doesn't suddenly become OK at a higher REL. And in this particular case, the way I see it is that Magic is a competition of deck building, strategy, and rules knowledge, not memorizing exact card wordings, and that doesn't change in different levels.
And I think there's a real difference between not explicitly providing some information, and deliberately (but implicitly) providing subtly wrong information
 
Did you know that you can ask a judge for Oracle text whenever you want?
 
7:09 PM
I do know that. Did you know that you're not allowed to misrepresent free or derived information?
 
@murgatroid99 There are so many things wrong with what you said. For one, you can't assume that using old text is "being a jerk" as evidence that someone doing it is being a jerk.
Tautology: Being a jerk is not okay at any level.
@murgatroid99 I do know that. Using old card text does not constitute misrepresenting free or derived information.
Anyway, the TR specifically allows for using old printings of cards that have been printed in a legal set.
From another L2 Judge: "You can't know what your opponent knows or doesn't know about the cards you're playing with. If your opponent isn't clear on what your cards do, it's his responsibility to ask you, or even better, a judge."
Oracle text is considered derived information at Competitive and Professional REL. It's free information at Regular according to this L3 Judge. That pretty much debunks your theory about how, as you put it, "being a jerk doesn't suddenly become okay at higher RELs".
 
I know that you are allowed to use the card. But this is a particular case of "deliberately using the pre-errata text of a card that has received functional errata for the purpose of misleading an opponent about free or derived information" It just seems like an abuse of a corner case to gain an advantage that is allowed only because it would be overly burdensome to outlaw it.
 
Well I found multiple L2/L3 judges who disagree with you, so unless you have a better argument than "I feel like it's a corner case." you are wrong.
 
Is it abuse to intentionally add to the burden/responsibility of the opponent?
 
@murgatroid99 Keep in mind that you are the one taking the extreme viewpoint here. I could get on board with "It is unsportsmanlike at some levels of play." But all levels of play? That's just ridiculous.
@JonTheMon Just to be clear, are we asking if it is legal, or are we asking if it is sportsmanlike?
If I ask how many cards you have in your hand, I have added to your burden. You must answer me and tell the truth. It's neither legal nor unsportsmanlike for me to do that.
On the other hand, if I use old card texts as we have been discussing, then I have added to your burden, but I would consider is sportsmanlike only at the highest levels of competitive play.
 
7:26 PM
I'm getting out of this discussion. The distinctions you're making make no sense to me, and we're just going in circles
 
I'm sorry that you can't distinguish between levels of play.
Or between sportsmanlike/legal.
 
@Rainbolt Abuse is a fine line between the two.
Abuse is legal, but too much could be a tournament infraction.
 
Okay. In that case I think that no, adding to the burden of your opponent can never earn you an infraction regardless of how much you do it.
But we're speaking in really broad terms now. If you wanted to lessen the burden of your opponent, you could just concede the match. You burden your opponent merely by playing the game.
 
Well, you're allowed to burden your opponent with at least 2 games so you haven't abused that yet lol
 
Okay, so the question is what is allowed?
I'm still trying to get a grasp of what you are asking
 
7:33 PM
I dunno. I was pushing more along the "is it abuse" line, which we feel is not quite abuse.
 
You just said "Well, you're allowed to [....] so you haven't abused that yet"
You're allowed to play with old cards, so you haven't abused that either, right?
You can play with a ton of old cards if you want, or just a few
 
I was kinda making a joke about burdening your opponent with games, so that point is a little... throwaway?
But back to the point, it feels a bit like playing with all foreign-language cards
At FNM, it's pretty mean to make the "just started magic" player figure out all the cards, and might get the judges upset at you.
 
I totally agree. That goes right back to my point from earlier about beginner, intermediate, and advanced Magic.
 
At high competitive levels, it definitely adds a burden to the opponent, but is fully allowed.
 
Yes, I consider it abuse to burden a new player with foreign cards UNLESS you also help them understand the cards.
I wouldn't expect the veteran player to have two decks just so new players can read one of them
But I would consider him unsportsmanlike for using that to beat a new player
 
7:38 PM
That's about what I think too.
 
7:50 PM
Here's another perspective. A while back we were playing a 2HG game against some friends. My roommate misunderstood a card and wanted to take back a play. Opponents offered "Do you want to play for real or for fun? If you want to play for fun then I don't mind letting you take it back." My roommate said "No, nevermind. We'll play on." Now why do you think he did that?
 
Wanted to cultivate the higher REL mindset?
 
That's pretty much what I think (assuming higher REL yields higher competition, which most of the time it does). I think my roommate gets more enjoyment out of winning when the opponent is not giving out freebies.
 
8:44 PM
Huh, a judge article about moving out of Main phase: blogs.magicjudges.org/whatsupdocs/2016/05/26/…
 
@JonTheMon That seems kind of dumb. They seem to be basically saying that it's actually impossible to have priority at the beginning of your beginning of combat step.
 
They are putting a lot of barriers in the way, yes
 
> Even the most thorough statement like: “I pass priority to you in Main Phase 1” or “I want to enter in the beginning of combat step” falls under that shortcut.
It's not just barriers. You actually can't go to that point in the turn. Which is dumb
 
I do think they might be overly interpreting the shortcut.
Like, they say "every" with no caveat
 
It's really the "priority" one that seems wrong. Because that's not a shortcut
 
8:54 PM
@murgatroid99 I'm pretty sure my suggestion last time we talked about this of "I want to move to beginning of combat, do you want to do anything while still in my main phase" would still work
 
I have a bunch of problems with that article. Notably, "Can we move to damage? Okay, I'll bolt your guy. Damage?" just sounds wrong to me, and yet the article says that the NAP can do exactly that.
But it is good to know. Thanks for sharing @JonTheMon
 
@Rainbolt Their reasoning on that part makes sense to me. They didn't deprive AP of an opportunity to act by not announcing that they would cast a spell
 
But they have gained an advantage in knowing that the AP had nothing to cast before damage
 
NAP always gets to respond last.
 
@Rainbolt The NAP has that advantage anyway, by simple priority rules
 
8:59 PM
Oh, yea, you're right. It makes sense now
Nevermind then. I only have the one issue left, and that's the one murg already mentioned
 
I think if I ever encounter a situation where I need priority at my beginning of combat, I would consider actually calling a judge and explaining to make sure it's all above board.
 
The timing of this article is quite nice given how controversial it was in here last week.
 
It just seems wrong that you can't act in your own beginning of combat without announcing what you want to do there, which would allow your opponent to pre-empt it by acting in your main phase
I wonder if it would be enough to just say "I would like to do something in the beginning of combat before declaring attacks"
Or "I would like to go to combat and do something before declaring attacks"
 
Yea, the philosophy doesn't line up. They say that they are fine with the NAP being extra proactive during the draw step, but it's not okay for the AP to be extra proactive during the beginning of combat.
I'm not super worried about it because I don't have anything to do in my beginning of combat with my modern deck, and that's the only format I really care about.
I actually enjoy the protection of this rule, since I play Cryptic Command which is a highly interactive card at these stages of the game.
"Damage? Oh wait, that's lethal. I'll cast Cryptic Command."
Interestingly enough, that askamagicjudge got this wrong when we asked her. Having read through a few of her posts, she seems fairly knowledgeable, and she seems to have been around for a while.
 
I definitely understand the benefits of ruling that way, but activating manlands is a good example of something that you may frequently want to do as late as possible before attacking.
 
9:12 PM
The manlands example I thought was poor, because you could just do that in your main phase without giving away any additional information.
What advantage does the AP get by activating during BoC?
 
@Rainbolt The one time I have wanted to do this, I needed to let mana leave my opponent's mana pool in their main phase so that I could activate manlands without my opponent being able to cast a removal spell.
 
Oh, right, you shared that example before
 
I guess that's probably the only common reason for waiting
 
Hmm... I guess actually do have a reason for wanting priority in my BoC step. It would be extremely rare, but it could happen.
 
I guess I could have just said "Go to combat and activate my Inkmoth Nexus before attacks" because it was obvious that I would do that, but it may not be obvious in general
 

« first day (2033 days earlier)