Support NeoGAF

[Ashodin]

This image came up on Twitter again:

Remember this, back when SOI was being revealed? They still haven't followed up on the Green jeweled Vampire house. It's possible they might reveal them in this set?

 

[ultron87]

I got the classic "opponent who lost telling you everything you did wrong unprompted" last night. That's always great.

 

[SigmasonicX]

This image came up on Twitter again:

Remember this, back when SOI was being revealed? They still haven't followed up on the Green jeweled Vampire house. It's possible they might reveal them in this set?

It feels unlikely that they'd introduce the fifth vampire family now, without any buildup.

 

[Haly]

Tweest: Green vamps were the werewolves all along

 

[Keru_Shiri]

This image came up on Twitter again:

Remember this, back when SOI was being revealed? They still haven't followed up on the Green jeweled Vampire house. It's possible they might reveal them in this set?

I don't know, but Quartz of Eternal Thirst should be the next tagline for FakeGaf.

 

[divisionbyzorro]

I mean, this entire discussion is kind of the same thing as Bob Huang's Borborygmos fiasco.

I think its wrong morally and I don't think it should be right within the rules. The point of the game is strategic choices. The umpire were within the rules to call George Brett out for his pine tar being above some arbitrary line on the bat (despite having nothing to do with his home run), or to call someone out for not running in the chalked base-line, but that doesn't typically happen in practice because its considered poor sportsmanship to rules lawyer. Yet it happens all of the time in Magic. Why? Why is "doing anything to win" considered okay in Magic, but not in other competitive sports? I'd posit that its because Magic is because its a niche product without a lot of eyeballs on it and therefore the players believe they can get away with it. Which to me, is gross.

It's a hard enough game as it is to screw over someone attempting to make an obviously valid play based on an errant slip of the tongue when everyone involved knew what was supposed to be happening.

See, what you're advocating is for the game to be played under a different set of rules, and then judging other people's character for not playing under the rules you think should have been in place. The competitive tournament rules don't allow judges to let you change what you did just because you didn't understand the implications of what you did, and I can't imagine that the game would be a better place if they tried to amend the competitive rule set to allow for "oops my bad" takesies-backsies.

I agree it's less "fun" and can lead to feel-bads, but that's exactly the reason FNM and GPs aren't judged the same.

 

[Ashodin]

Tweest: Green vamps were the werewolves all along

Twist: Green vamps are a side effect of BW Angel doing the ritual - it turned some vampires actually good

 

[Firemind]

i thought the green vampires are elves

 

[Simply Sarah]

I mean, this entire discussion is kind of the same thing as Bob Huang's Borborygmos fiasco.

I think its wrong morally and I don't think it should be right within the rules. The point of the game is strategic choices. The umpire were within the rules to call George Brett out for his pine tar being above some arbitrary line on the bat (despite having nothing to do with his home run), or to call someone out for not running in the chalked base-line, but that doesn't typically happen in practice because its considered poor sportsmanship to rules lawyer. Yet it happens all of the time in Magic. Why? Why is "doing anything to win" considered okay in Magic, but not in other competitive sports? I'd posit that its because Magic is because its a niche product without a lot of eyeballs on it and therefore the players believe they can get away with it. Which to me, is gross.

It's a hard enough game as it is to screw over someone attempting to make an obviously valid play based on an errant slip of the tongue when everyone involved knew what was supposed to be happening.

Eh, it's not just Magic. In chess if you intentionally touch a piece and it's legal for you to move it then you are required to make a move with it. The second your hand leaves a piece and the move would be legal that move cannot be undo. If you castle you need to move the King first instead of the Rook or you'll have made a legal Rook move that isn't castling. That's how any remotely competitive players knows chess works and in any competitive environment these kinds of things are strictly enforced.

 

[Angry Grimace]

Eh, it's not just Magic. In chess if you intentionally touch a piece and it's legal for you to move it then you are required to make a move with it. The second your hand leaves a piece and the move would be legal that move cannot be undo. If you castle you need to move the King first instead of the Rook or you'll have made a legal Rook move that isn't castling. That's how any remotely competitive players knows chess works and in any competitive environment these kinds of things are strictly enforced.

The rules of chess are far simpler than Magic the gathering in which there are interactions between tens of thousands of cards. In chess the rules interactions of the game are completely understood by 100% of the people attempting to play it competitively. There literally is no circumstance in which you could somehow mess up unless you suddenly had a brain aneurysm and moved the wrong piece.

 

[Core Zero]

See, what you're advocating is for the game to be played under a different set of rules, and then judging other people's character for not playing under the rules you think should have been in place. The competitive tournament rules don't allow judges to let you change what you did just because you didn't understand the implications of what you did, and I can't imagine that the game would be a better place if they tried to amend the competitive rule set to allow for "oops my bad" takesies-backsies.

I agree it's less "fun" and can lead to feel-bads, but that's exactly the reason FNM and GPs aren't judged the same.

Would it maybe have been appropriate for the judge in this case to say "you have to choose a mode before you choose a target?"

As a non-competitive player, what sticks out to me is that this case all hinges on the fact that saying "target" implicitly chooses a mode for the spell, while the rules of Magic are generally written to avoid implications anywhere (i.e. spells do exactly what they say they do, no more, no less). To me, requiring the mode be chosen first would have avoided the issue and still been within legal judging of the rules. But I am not a Magic judge.

 

[Simply Sarah]

The rules of chess are far simpler than Magic the gathering in which there are interactions between tens of thousands of cards. In chess the rules interactions of the game are completely understood by 100% of the people attempting to play it competitively. There literally is no circumstance in which you could somehow mess up unless you suddenly had a brain aneurysm and moved the wrong piece.

Sure, Magic is vastly more complex. I'm just pointing out that hard and fast rules that don't care about if you actually meant to do what you did or not exist elsewhere. I'm not even saying it's right, just that it happens. I actually tend to agree with you that in cases where it's clear what was intended and what was done were different things that it's good to give some amount of leeway. That said, it can become hard to determine where to draw the line.

 

[kirblar]

What Would Reid Duke Do?

 

["God's Beard!"]

What Would Reid Duke Do?

Force the slowest GBx control deck possible in every format.

Testing never stops

There's less than a quarter of the total EMN cards spoiled. Testing now is totally worthless. Every time I test before the full spoiler is out I wind up switching decks. Remember that Siege Rhino wasn't spoiled at the beginning of KTK spoilers.

 

[Ashodin]

[QUOTE="God's Beard!";208806478]Force the slowest GBx control deck possible in every format.



There's less than a quarter of the total EMN cards spoiled. Testing now is totally worthless. Every time I test before the full spoiler is out I wind up switching decks. Remember that Siege Rhino wasn't spoiled at the beginning of KTK spoilers.[/QUOTE]

I wasn't around for KTK spoilers
HOLY SHIT

Thalia + Nahiri = zap a fucker

 

[Angry Grimace]

[QUOTE="God's Beard!";208806478]Force the slowest GBx control deck possible in every format.



There's less than a quarter of the total EMN cards spoiled. Testing now is totally worthless. Every time I test before the full spoiler is out I wind up switching decks. Remember that Siege Rhino wasn't spoiled at the beginning of KTK spoilers.[/QUOTE]

Elvish Mystic is bad in Abzan Midrange

 

["God's Beard!"]

Elvish Mystic is bad in Abzan Midrange

Won the pro tour

 

[charlequin]

TEDDY BEAR GIRL NOOOOOO

INteresting artwork on wizard's eldritch moon site for cards we don't have yet

I just love these callbacks. So happy that they're doing these for different random cards, not just the most obvious marquee cards.

I'm not convinced these are arts for new cards.

All the stuff on the minisite for SOI was real card art.

I think it's going to be hard for them to differentiate what how Phyrexia is different to Emrakul thematically or mechanically when we next return to them - heck, we've already had a "corruption" set with the same themes as this with Phyrexia.

I think they're pretty different. Phyrexia is infectious like a disease, but a large part of the horror (especially in NPH) is about these sentient beings purposely tearing things down and reconstructing them in their own image. Most of the horror there isn't people turning bad passively, it's the horrifying things the Phyrexians purposely do to the Mirrans in pursuit of compleation.

Plus, as others have noted, the mechanical theme isn't really similar -- in Phyrexia few of the cards had any real transformation theme, and the mechanical "hook" was all about pain rather than monstrous conversion.

When you play Comp. Rel, you're responsible for knowing what your own damn cards do.

This really deeply misunderstands the issue. Grimace is absolutely correct in this thread -- this type of play involves a level of actively malicious unsportsmanlike behavior that is completely not tolerated in more professional competitive fields, precisely because those fields are populated by more actual professionals and fewer sociopathic manchildren.

The fundamental issue here, and what separates this from other types of rules lawyering is how it takes advantage of players trying to play the game correctly. Because Magic is so complex and has so many rules that, implemented overly literally, are slow and repetitive to follow fully, the game absolutely depends on shortcuts in order to be played -- especially for it to be possible to play high-skill-level competitive matches in a reasonable amount of time. Both players have a responsibility to use these to keep gameplay flowing smoothly, and to respond in good faith to an opponent's actions, understanding what unambiguous things mean rather than pretending to be incapable of following nuance.

In this case, the opponent is very much trying to play correctly: they're being careful to announce the spell and to clarify the mode they're using, as they're responsible to do. Their intent is completely and absolutely unambiguous to human intelligence -- no one would ever assume they're trying to self-discard here if they were asked to simply interpret the player's intentions in a vacuum. Cedric's action involves purposely pretending to be stupid, to interpret opponents' action in a pedantic and perverse way, and encourages other players to play more slowly around imaginary rules gotchas rather than focusing on real gameplay issues.

It's also what distinguishes it from other types of rules-lawyering that do rely on rules knowledge. Letting an opponent miss a trigger is indeed just about knowing what the cards do. Holding an opponent to a choice where they believed a card worked in X way while the ruling is actually Y is fine because, again, the player made a legitimate misplay due to lacking knowledge and should suffer the consequences of that. This circumstance involves taking an opponent who has not misplayed, and exploiting their speech to force them into a game action they explicitly did not intend and that no reasonable observer would assume they intended -- it has nothing to do with card functionality, and everything to do with exploiting the system for personal gain. That makes this unambiguously immoral and scummy to do.

 

[y2dvd]

How do yall feel about sports players taunting or trash talking in general?

 

[Ashodin]

Thalia holy shit

She fucking WRECKS GW Tokens. All their shit comes into play tapped. Goddamn

 

[red13th]

Thalia's effect is great, it's why Imposing Sovereign is a pretty good cube card. And Thalia has great combat stats for a 3 drop, plus she's a non-basic land hoser and has AMAZING art! I love that card.

 

[Angry Grimace]

I'd be more excited about Thalia except oh wait its another OP Collected Company hit

 

[Ashodin]

I'd be more excited about Thalia except oh wait its another OP Collected Company hit

My opponent just dropped a non-basic on Turn 4 and couldn't CoCo. It was sadtimes for them.

 

[Angry Grimace]

Bring back Satyr Wayfinder

 

["God's Beard!"]

You open this pack in Vintage Cube. What's the pick?

Spoiler

Half this pack is cards you'd be happy first pick, but it's probably between Karn and the mox leaning towards the mox.

Bring back Satyr Wayfinder

Finally something we agree on.

 

[Angry Grimace]

Tooth and Nail, baby.

Spoiler

Mox Emerald

 

[Haines]

Todays cards took me from excited for this set to hyped.

I think its the added flavor and just seeing some strong cards like murder.

 

[Ashodin]

Strip mine for the lulz

 

[El Topo]

I could see someone take Consecrated Sphinx. That said, Mox Emerald is the obvious pick.

 

[Angry Grimace]

It can't be understated that the designation "professional" with regards to Magic doesn't mean what it does in most other contexts. Consider that Eric Froehlich, a Magic Hall of Famer, legitimately did not understand why people were upset when he wrote an article calling out another player for refusing to agree to collusion and vowing to get revenge through his exclusive clique. The term "professional" in Magic should be taken about as seriously as it is with professional wrestling.

When there's no ambiguity about what is actually happening, but you're feigning confusion, you're playing dirty. And getting away with playing dirty isn't a thing that happens in actual professional leagues.

 

[kirblar]

And getting away with playing dirty isn't a thing that happens in actual professional leagues.

Oh, you sweet summer child....

 

[CeruleanSilver]

This hits upon the most important point for me:

This circumstance involves taking an opponent who has not misplayed, and exploiting their speech to force them into a game action they explicitly did not intend and that no reasonable observer would assume they intended

Cedric enforcing the discard mode based on the word "target" doesn't have anything to do regarding game skills, it's just exploiting a verbal mistake. It's winning on a technicality that doesn't have anything to do with what makes Magic interesting.

 

[Firemind]

I could see someone take Consecrated Sphinx. That said, Mox Emerald is the obvious pick.

It's Karn.

Mox is the second worst Mox, maybe even the worst with all those mana elves. At least Ruby is more playable in Storm. The only way I would take Emerald over Karn is if I have Tinker in the pile. Karn takes over games by himself and it's super easy to ramp him out with Signets and the broken mana rocks.

 

[Angry Grimace]

Oh, you sweet summer child....

I don't mean people don't cheat, I mean people don't typically exploit the rules technicalities publicly e.g. the George Brett incident.

It's Karn.

Mox is the second worst Mox, maybe even the worst with all those mana elves. At least Ruby is more playable in Storm. The only way I would take Emerald over Karn is if I have Tinker in the pile. Karn takes over games by himself and it's super easy to ramp him out with Signets and the broken mana rocks.

I would play Mox Emerald in literally every deck ever made. It doesn't matter if its even on color, I don't think its close.

 

[El Topo]

It's Karn.

Mox is the second worst Mox, maybe even the worst with all those mana elves. At least Ruby is more playable in Storm. The only way I would take Emerald over Karn is if I have Tinker in the pile. Karn takes over games by himself and it's super easy to ramp him out with Signets and the broken mana rocks.

Fair enough. I'd probably not pass a Mox though, but that's just me. Enough signets around I guess.

I don't mean people don't cheat, I mean people don't typically exploit the rules technicalities publicly e.g. the George Brett incident.

I've seen people get really aggressive about rules, if only to throw the opponent off-balance. Not at big events, but at FNM and prerelease. Usually they came all from the same play group.

 

[Smiley90]

I stopped playing MTG online a while back but still have some money tied up in the account. Have they finally fixed the god-awful client or is it still something straight out of 1995? I love the game but I refuse to use that stupid client.

(and by a while back I mean after... I think it was Mirrodin Besieged)

 

[charlequin]

I definitely take Karn in that pack even though Emerald is probably the correct pick.

Cedric enforcing the discard mode based on the word "target" doesn't have anything to do regarding game skills, it's just exploiting a verbal mistake. It's winning on a technicality that doesn't have anything to do with what makes Magic interesting.

Right, exactly. There are circumstances where you can leverage fairly specific rules knowledge (either affirmatively by seeing a line that you otherwise wouldn't, or defensively by committing an opponent to a plan they made using incorrect rules understanding) to victory and that at least does involve a direct type of skill in MTG, but the Cedric story is about purposely misreading a verbal shortcut purely to eke out unearned advantage. There's a type of "skill" there but it's just the skill of being a sleazebag.

I don't mean people don't cheat, I mean people don't typically exploit the rules technicalities publicly e.g. the George Brett incident.

Right, it's not that people don't cheat in pro sports, but rather that there's a very strong public position that cheating, dirty play, etc. is wrong, which both produces lots of anger when someone is perceived as doing it and leads to huge penalties when someone is proven to do it.

 

[Firemind]

I don't mean people don't cheat, I mean people don't typically exploit the rules technicalities publicly e.g. the George Brett incident.



I would play Mox Emerald in literally every deck ever made. It doesn't matter if its even on color, I don't think its close.

I would play Karn in almost every cube deck. The dilemma is whether you want to prioritize a 17th land that accelerates possibly irrelevant coloured mana or a threat that can end games rather quickly. Even in the mono green ramp deck, I'd pick Karn. It's no hyperbole to say Karn is insane especially in powered cube. Being a planeswalker, it blanks a large amount of removal. I remember games where I lost with Consecrated Sphinx being cloned or control magic'd. I can only recall one instance where a topdecked Karn didn't help me win the game because of how far behind I was.

 

[Familienoberhauptvogel]

I side with cedric and that as the sort of person making that kind of mistake.
I'd never learn if people wouldn't hold me to it, part of the reason I'm trying to stop doing takesey backsies even in casual.

Also definitely that Karn.

 

[Ashodin]

I side with cedric and that as the sort of person making that kind of mistake.
I'd never learn if people wouldn't hold me to it, part of the reason I'm trying to stop doing takesey backsies even in casual.

I do like the idea that you can't correct bad behavior if you're not encouraging yourself to.

 

[charlequin]

I'd never learn if people wouldn't hold me to it, part of the reason I'm trying to stop doing takesey backsies even in casual.

It's not about learning though. There's no lesson to draw from this scenario. The only practical way for a person to watch out for this type of gotcha scenario is to use an infuriating level of precise language and insisting every interaction be explicitly walked through -- which makes the process of playing magic completely miserable. Like, it really isn't equivalent to "learn how to stack triggers" or whatever at all.

Like, I very much encourage people to be precise about areas that can get confused and to only take actions they are committed to, that's all good practice, but trying to watch for purposeful verbal trickery on a metagame level is just totally outside the scope of the game.

 

[divisionbyzorro]

This really deeply misunderstands the issue. Grimace is absolutely correct in this thread -- this type of play involves a level of actively malicious unsportsmanlike behavior that is completely not tolerated in more professional competitive fields, precisely because those fields are populated by more actual professionals and fewer sociopathic manchildren.

The fundamental issue here, and what separates this from other types of rules lawyering is how it takes advantage of players trying to play the game correctly. Because Magic is so complex and has so many rules that, implemented overly literally, are slow and repetitive to follow fully, the game absolutely depends on shortcuts in order to be played -- especially for it to be possible to play high-skill-level competitive matches in a reasonable amount of time. Both players have a responsibility to use these to keep gameplay flowing smoothly, and to respond in good faith to an opponent's actions, understanding what unambiguous things mean rather than pretending to be incapable of following nuance.

In this case, the opponent is very much trying to play correctly: they're being careful to announce the spell and to clarify the mode they're using, as they're responsible to do. Their intent is completely and absolutely unambiguous to human intelligence -- no one would ever assume they're trying to self-discard here if they were asked to simply interpret the player's intentions in a vacuum. Cedric's action involves purposely pretending to be stupid, to interpret opponents' action in a pedantic and perverse way, and encourages other players to play more slowly around imaginary rules gotchas rather than focusing on real gameplay issues.

It's also what distinguishes it from other types of rules-lawyering that do rely on rules knowledge. Letting an opponent miss a trigger is indeed just about knowing what the cards do. Holding an opponent to a choice where they believed a card worked in X way while the ruling is actually Y is fine because, again, the player made a legitimate misplay due to lacking knowledge and should suffer the consequences of that. This circumstance involves taking an opponent who has not misplayed, and exploiting their speech to force them into a game action they explicitly did not intend and that no reasonable observer would assume they intended -- it has nothing to do with card functionality, and everything to do with exploiting the system for personal gain. That makes this unambiguously immoral and scummy to do.

I literally could not disagree with you more (with regards to this particular scenario).

• "Unambiguously immoral and scummy" seems like a crazy thing to say here, considering that Cedric literally did exactly what you're supposed to do when something weird happens - call a judge. I can appreciate that you personally dislike what happened, but when Cedric not only did nothing wrong, but did specifically what the judge community begs players to do all the time (i.e., call a judge when there's a strange situation), you cannot call this situation "unambiguous." That's ridiculous.
• "Actively malicious" is also crazy to me. Cedric didn't lead his opponent into making a mistake - he simply held his opponent to it. This isn't a case where Cedric altered his play to trick his opponent or try to get him to make a mistake. His opponent made a completely unforced error and Cedric chose not to let it slide.
• "The game absolutely depends on shortcuts in order to be played." You're correct. And the tournament shortcuts state that if you target someone with a modal spell, and the spell has only one targeting mode, you are shortcutting the modal choice. Again, I fail to see how Cedric is wrong here.
• "Understanding what unambiguous things mean." As above - according to the rules, the opponent unambiguously wants to discard two cards.
• "No one would ever assume they're trying to self-discard." But now you're asking the tournament rules to be able to decipher intent which, if you actually implemented the rules that way, would suddenly require judges to have metagame and deck knowledge and apply their personal opinion on what the person "meant" at the time that they took the action. You're advocating a rules position which not only wasn't in place at the time, but is actually unenforceable and could lead to similar feel-bads in the other direction ("My opponent beat me in Top 8 - the judge let him take back a play that was obviously incorrect but he convinced the judges that he would never have meant to make that play in the first place so obviously he meant to do this other thing instead").

I agree that the situation feels very bad for Cedric's opponent. I agree that Cedric could have chosen to be kind and perhaps even be a "better" man by letting it slide. But Cedric literally did nothing wrong. I'm not fundamentally misunderstanding the issue - you're projecting a personal moral standard onto someone else and judging them for it. I appreciate that you feel there should be some level of "gentleman's agreement" in the game, and I can understand that philosophy, but I really can't support calling people "scumbags" over it. If you want to find something to call Cedric a scumbag about, he's given you plenty of opportunities - I just don't think this is one of them

Rich Hagon once said that Magic is a game about making fewer mistakes than your opponent. I don't at all support goading your opponent into making mistakes (for example, if you really want to get into it, I actually think the "pen trick" is far more ethically unsound than what Cedric did in this situation), but your job is not to correct your opponent's mistakes - it's to make fewer of them yourself.

It's not about learning though. There's no lesson to draw from this scenario. The only practical way for a person to watch out for this type of gotcha scenario is to use an infuriating level of precise language and insisting every interaction be explicitly walked through -- which makes the process of playing magic completely miserable. Like, it really isn't equivalent to "learn how to stack triggers" or whatever at all.

Like, I very much encourage people to be precise about areas that can get confused and to only take actions they are committed to, that's all good practice, but trying to watch for purposeful verbal trickery on a metagame level is just totally outside the scope of the game.

Again, I'd agree with you if Cedric led his opponent into making a mistake. But he didn't. His opponent just did the wrong thing without realizing he was doing the wrong thing. I don't believe Cedric is obligated to give him a takeback.

 

[Familienoberhauptvogel]

It's not about learning though. There's no lesson to draw from this scenario. The only practical way for a person to watch out for this type of gotcha scenario is to use an infuriating level of precise language and insisting every interaction be explicitly walked through -- which makes the process of playing magic completely miserable. Like, it really isn't equivalent to "learn how to stack triggers" or whatever at all.

Yes the lesson is rtfc and to take a hint, if cedric really did ask him to repeat it.

Oh yeah the let me reach for a pen to pretend I'll take it move. Can't really forbid that but it's a weird one

 

[Angry Grimace]

I would play Karn in almost every cube deck. The dilemma is whether you want to prioritize a 17th land that accelerates possibly irrelevant coloured mana or a threat that can end games rather quickly. Even in the mono green ramp deck, I'd pick Karn. It's no hyperbole to say Karn is insane especially in powered cube. Being a planeswalker, it blanks a large amount of removal. I remember games where I lost with Consecrated Sphinx being cloned or control magic'd. I can only recall one instance where a topdecked Karn didn't help me win the game because of how far behind I was.

I think Karn is the wrong choice by a pretty significant margin here. I think you're dramatically underestimating the value of completely free, permanent acceleration. Karn is a bomb but Vintage Cube is pretty much nothing but bombs.

When VMA was out, they looked at it and the only card more associated with winning decks than the Moxen and Black Lotus was Sol Ring.

I literally could not disagree with you more (with regards to this particular scenario).

• "Unambiguously immoral and scummy" seems like a crazy thing to say here, considering that Cedric literally did exactly what you're supposed to do when something weird happens - call a judge. I can appreciate that you personally dislike what happened, but when Cedric not only did nothing wrong, but did specifically what the judge community begs players to do all the time (i.e., call a judge when there's a strange situation), you cannot call this situation "unambiguous." That's ridiculous.
• "Actively malicious" is also crazy to me. Cedric didn't lead his opponent into making a mistake - he simply held his opponent to it. This isn't a case where Cedric altered his play to trick his opponent or try to get him to make a mistake. His opponent made a completely unforced error and Cedric chose not to let it slide.
• "The game absolutely depends on shortcuts in order to be played." You're correct. And the tournament shortcuts state that if you target someone with a modal spell, and the spell has only one targeting mode, you are shortcutting the modal choice. Again, I fail to see how Cedric is wrong here.
• "Understanding what unambiguous things mean." As above - according to the rules, the opponent unambiguously wants to discard two cards.
• "No one would ever assume they're trying to self-discard." But now you're asking the tournament rules to be able to decipher intent which, if you actually implemented the rules that way, would suddenly require judges to have metagame and deck knowledge and apply their personal opinion on what the person "meant" at the time that they took the action. You're advocating a rules position which not only wasn't in place at the time, but is actually unenforceable and could lead to similar feel-bads in the other direction ("My opponent beat me in Top 8 - the judge let him take back a play that was obviously incorrect but he convinced the judges that he would never have meant to make that play in the first place so obviously he meant to do this other thing instead").

I agree that the situation feels very bad for Cedric's opponent. I agree that Cedric could have chosen to be kind and perhaps even be a "better" man by letting it slide. But Cedric literally did nothing wrong. I'm not fundamentally misunderstanding the issue - you're projecting a personal moral standard onto someone else and judging them for it. I appreciate that you feel there should be some level of "gentleman's agreement" in the game, and I can understand that philosophy, but I really can't support calling people "scumbags" over it. If you want to find something to call Cedric a scumbag about, he's given you plenty of opportunities - I just don't think this is one of them

Rich Hagon once said that Magic is a game about making fewer mistakes than your opponent. I don't at all support goading your opponent into making mistakes (for example, if you really want to get into it, I actually think the "pen trick" is far more ethically unsound than what Cedric did in this situation), but your job is not to correct your opponent's mistakes - it's to make fewer of them yourself.

I mean, you're missing the point entirely. We know what the rules say. And saying that "the opponent unambiguously wants to discard two cards" is a reductio ad absurdum argument. You're conflating the literal rules result of the play with actual intent.

 

[SigmasonicX]

I stopped playing MTG online a while back but still have some money tied up in the account. Have they finally fixed the god-awful client or is it still something straight out of 1995? I love the game but I refuse to use that stupid client.

(and by a while back I mean after... I think it was Mirrodin Besieged)

Well, it's gotten up to early 2000s, from what I hear.
In other words, no, it hasn't improved much. Wizards' new CEO has experience with software, so hopefully he can shake things up, but that will take a few years no matter what.

 

[Smiley90]

Well, it's gotten up to early 2000s, from what I hear.
In other words, no, it hasn't improved much. Wizards' new CEO has experience with software, so hopefully he can shake things up, but that will take a few years no matter what.

They've made Duels games for years now, you'd think they'd be able to at least take SOME of the good things in those in terms of UI and put them into the actual game client...

 

[Angry Grimace]

The Duels games are garbage. I legitimately think they are worse than MODO.

 

[Smiley90]

The Duels games are garbage. I legitimately think they are worse than MODO.

I said UI, not the actual game itself

 

[Angry Grimace]

I said UI, not the actual game itself

The UI is what I am talking about. It barely works even if it looks nice.

 

[Bandini]

[QUOTE="God's Beard!";208811676]You open this pack in Vintage Cube. What's the pick?

[/QUOTE]

Is it pack 1? If so obvious Mox. Later packs I might take Sphinx, Tooth and Nail, or even Treachery depending on how my deck looks.