But that still doesn't address what Michelle brings up. Is "Combat" really only meaning "Attackers"? or is it somewhat more intuitively maybe also meaning "Go to the beginning of Combat step where I may have triggers"? Because to my mind that is a really important distinction being glossed over here. If it is the former, that needs to be changed imho.
My Bogles deck would love to face a deck like this. Facing a combo control deck which has almost no answers to my threats (and with combo elements which are too slow) is a dream matchup for Bogles.
I have two questions:
1. What is roughly the matchup percentage of UB Flicker vs RDW? I am guessing it is a bad matchup for UB Flicker, but I would like to know your thoughts.
2. As a matter of curiosity, did you ever manage to defeat a Bogles player with this deck?
Years ago, Magic judges did interpret what was said according to their own ideas of what was meant, what was right, and how badly the error affected the game. The result was that different judges would, given the exact same circumstances, make radically different rulings. It was literally possible for one judge to give a warning for the exact same infraction that another judge would give a game loss for. I am not kidding; I have seen exactly that happen, and listened the other judges debate which ruling was correct.
For those wondering about this, look up the infraction Procedural Error Minor, Major and Severe, IIRC. Not sure whether "severe" is the right term.
Having rulings vary judge by judge is bad, so Wizards changed the policy so every judge gives the same ruling in the same circumstances. This means that the rules define the policy and how it is applied. Yes, judges "slavishly" follow this policy, but we tried the alternative. It was not better.
You can parse English in a number of different ways. However, we don't have to parse language here, because the rules say that when a word or phrase like "combat" is used in the context of a Magic game, it means an offer to pass priority to the end of the beginning of combat. At that point, if the opponent also passes, the game moves on to declare attackers.
You could also argue that saying "go" could just mean that the player wanted to go to the next step, and not to the end of turn. However, the Magic Tournament Rules clearly state if you use the word "go" as a shortcut, it means passing until end of turn.
Remember, you do not have to use a shortcut, but if you choose to use one, both your opponent and any judges that might get involved will interpret the shortcut to mean what the Magic rules say it means. If you want to mean something else, then say something else.
You said: "Some people have argued that the active player hadn’t intended to pass priority. That’s wrong. The active player had clearly said “combat,” then waited for his opponent to respond. The opponent indicated that he had no responses. That is a clearly both players passing on an open stack, which means that you start the next step."
Respectfully, I doubt this is correct. I would be very surprised that by saying "Combat", he intended to pass priority until Declare Attackers phase. I acknowledge that the player had probably not appreciated or remembered all the details of the Shortcut section of the MTR, which mentions the shortcut phrase "Ready for Combat" to mean pass priority until Declare Attackers. As others have pointed out, this is such a stupid shortcut given that it is so easily misinterpreted or misunderstood.
But this is more than just a case of a judge slavishly following a stupid ruling, as if his hands were tied. What makes the judge's ruling most reprehensible is that the player did not even say "Ready for Combat", but instead he said "Combat". Now whilst you may argue that there is not much difference between these two words/phrases, take into account that the judge is the one who is throwing the book at someone with chapter and verse, so if the judge wants to be strict, then he should be strict on himself too, not just on some foreign player who did NOT even use the shortcut mentioned in the MTR.
In my opinion, in light of such an ambiguous shortcut (and yes it was ambiguous because he didn't even use the exact shortcut phrase in the MTR), the judge should have actually investigated what was the actual intention of the foreign player. And I would bet my house that he did not intend to pass priority during Beginning of Combat step.
Please note this is no offense to you, but a disagreement with the rules. You state that the player should have said "beginning of combat." However, the rules indicate that that means go to attackers. You have to explicitly acknowledge your trigger that happens in the beginning of combat. You cannot stop in that phase unless you have a trigger, and you have to acknowledge it.
There was also a language barrier issue here. If the player's community would indicate a beginning of combat trigger by saying something close to combat in Spanish, then the translation suddenly causes issues.
In the end, it does not matter the rule has existed for years. What matters is that the rule is bad.
It also really screws up MTGO based players. When saying "go to beginning of combat" means I go all the way to attackers, instead of the "Beginning of Combat" phase, there is something wrong.
"Players were clearly in the declare attackers step. The active player had offered to yield to that point in the turn"
Actually, by saying "combat", can't it be implied that the active player was yielding until, well, Combat? That is, the beginning of the combat step?
I still strongly disagree with the ruling, especially since English was clearly not the player's first language, and this sort of thing HAS to be taken into consideration in an international tournament such as the Pro Tour.
Thanks for the comments. I have no intention of moving away from the text format, so you'll have lots more of these to come!
I agree with most of what you said, so thank you for that. I'll say that the reason I ran 17 land + 1 map was that I actually did this draft two weeks ago, just after it came out on Magic Online, and I hadn't quite worked out that the map is worth a land. I certainly have been running less since this draft.
First of all, thanks for making old-school text drafts! I prefer this format over the videos and streams, since the reader is not the prisoner of the drafter's pace.
Some thoughts to your draft:
Pack 2 pick 3: Prioritizing two-drops early in an aggressive deck seems to me to be the better option here. At this point you just have two.
Pack 2 pick 4: I don't think you will splash in aggressive deck and so far you have neither revolt nor improvise. Leave in the Dust is a great tempo card in a evasion-heavy aggro deck.
Overall I think you drafted very well and found two open colors. The rather weak Kaladesh pack was not a result of your picks, it was just bad luck.
Deck:
I strongly disagree with your decision on playing the blue puzzleknot. The synergy with Gearseeker Serpent is not worth the inclusion. The puzzleknot doesn't do enough to be worth a card. The second Audacious Infiltrator would have been much better.
Also I think you run too many mana sources. 17 lands + the map is too much. You don't have good mana sinks in the late game, just the automaton-scrys and the serpent, to make use of that many mana sources.
Yes, a judge was an eyewitness, he then interviewed eyewitnesses and took into account all available evidence at hand (ie. actual fact finding) to determine the likely intention.
(Now it dawns on me why Wizards gave us the sideboard card "Feed the Clan" rather than "Feed the Trolls". Sage advice for such a pesky matchup as this one. I should have taken the advice, and I will take it in future by not responding to further incoherence).
Yes, you must inform your opponent when there is a life discrepancy, whether or not it benefits you. Wizards could have therefore worded the statement better.
However, you are being overly harsh and nitpicking. You ignore the context of Wizards' statement, which involved an incident that was more than just a simple life discrepancy. The discrepancy was due to a person making an illegal attack, and then realising that it was an illegal attack BECAUSE of the discrepancy. Not informing about the discrepancy here falls under the "Cheating" section of the Tournament Rules, because the player either knew or discovered that it was an illegal play, then adjusted himself to pretend that he actually attacked with a different creature. This is cheating.
But that still doesn't address what Michelle brings up. Is "Combat" really only meaning "Attackers"? or is it somewhat more intuitively maybe also meaning "Go to the beginning of Combat step where I may have triggers"? Because to my mind that is a really important distinction being glossed over here. If it is the former, that needs to be changed imho.
"Combat ?" or "Attack ?" is not a shortcut, it is the simplest advancement from one phase to another. Pete Jahn and PT-judges are wrong.
Nice article, thanks.
The deck looks both potent and fun.
My Bogles deck would love to face a deck like this. Facing a combo control deck which has almost no answers to my threats (and with combo elements which are too slow) is a dream matchup for Bogles.
I have two questions:
1. What is roughly the matchup percentage of UB Flicker vs RDW? I am guessing it is a bad matchup for UB Flicker, but I would like to know your thoughts.
2. As a matter of curiosity, did you ever manage to defeat a Bogles player with this deck?
I'm glad the UG Version of Aetherworks exists, but to me it's missing something. It's not as fun maybe? It whiffs a whole lot on activations.
Years ago, Magic judges did interpret what was said according to their own ideas of what was meant, what was right, and how badly the error affected the game. The result was that different judges would, given the exact same circumstances, make radically different rulings. It was literally possible for one judge to give a warning for the exact same infraction that another judge would give a game loss for. I am not kidding; I have seen exactly that happen, and listened the other judges debate which ruling was correct.
For those wondering about this, look up the infraction Procedural Error Minor, Major and Severe, IIRC. Not sure whether "severe" is the right term.
Having rulings vary judge by judge is bad, so Wizards changed the policy so every judge gives the same ruling in the same circumstances. This means that the rules define the policy and how it is applied. Yes, judges "slavishly" follow this policy, but we tried the alternative. It was not better.
You can parse English in a number of different ways. However, we don't have to parse language here, because the rules say that when a word or phrase like "combat" is used in the context of a Magic game, it means an offer to pass priority to the end of the beginning of combat. At that point, if the opponent also passes, the game moves on to declare attackers.
You could also argue that saying "go" could just mean that the player wanted to go to the next step, and not to the end of turn. However, the Magic Tournament Rules clearly state if you use the word "go" as a shortcut, it means passing until end of turn.
Remember, you do not have to use a shortcut, but if you choose to use one, both your opponent and any judges that might get involved will interpret the shortcut to mean what the Magic rules say it means. If you want to mean something else, then say something else.
Hi Pete, nice article as usual.
You said: "Some people have argued that the active player hadn’t intended to pass priority. That’s wrong. The active player had clearly said “combat,” then waited for his opponent to respond. The opponent indicated that he had no responses. That is a clearly both players passing on an open stack, which means that you start the next step."
Respectfully, I doubt this is correct. I would be very surprised that by saying "Combat", he intended to pass priority until Declare Attackers phase. I acknowledge that the player had probably not appreciated or remembered all the details of the Shortcut section of the MTR, which mentions the shortcut phrase "Ready for Combat" to mean pass priority until Declare Attackers. As others have pointed out, this is such a stupid shortcut given that it is so easily misinterpreted or misunderstood.
But this is more than just a case of a judge slavishly following a stupid ruling, as if his hands were tied. What makes the judge's ruling most reprehensible is that the player did not even say "Ready for Combat", but instead he said "Combat". Now whilst you may argue that there is not much difference between these two words/phrases, take into account that the judge is the one who is throwing the book at someone with chapter and verse, so if the judge wants to be strict, then he should be strict on himself too, not just on some foreign player who did NOT even use the shortcut mentioned in the MTR.
In my opinion, in light of such an ambiguous shortcut (and yes it was ambiguous because he didn't even use the exact shortcut phrase in the MTR), the judge should have actually investigated what was the actual intention of the foreign player. And I would bet my house that he did not intend to pass priority during Beginning of Combat step.
Please note this is no offense to you, but a disagreement with the rules. You state that the player should have said "beginning of combat." However, the rules indicate that that means go to attackers. You have to explicitly acknowledge your trigger that happens in the beginning of combat. You cannot stop in that phase unless you have a trigger, and you have to acknowledge it.
There was also a language barrier issue here. If the player's community would indicate a beginning of combat trigger by saying something close to combat in Spanish, then the translation suddenly causes issues.
In the end, it does not matter the rule has existed for years. What matters is that the rule is bad.
It also really screws up MTGO based players. When saying "go to beginning of combat" means I go all the way to attackers, instead of the "Beginning of Combat" phase, there is something wrong.
nice video man, keep up the good work
As for Tarfire over Bolt, it probably has to do with reaching delirium and pumping Tarmogoyf.
"Players were clearly in the declare attackers step. The active player had offered to yield to that point in the turn"
Actually, by saying "combat", can't it be implied that the active player was yielding until, well, Combat? That is, the beginning of the combat step?
I still strongly disagree with the ruling, especially since English was clearly not the player's first language, and this sort of thing HAS to be taken into consideration in an international tournament such as the Pro Tour.
LOL You're too funny Michelle. :D
Thanks for the comments. I have no intention of moving away from the text format, so you'll have lots more of these to come!
I agree with most of what you said, so thank you for that. I'll say that the reason I ran 17 land + 1 map was that I actually did this draft two weeks ago, just after it came out on Magic Online, and I hadn't quite worked out that the map is worth a land. I certainly have been running less since this draft.
Thanks again!
First of all, thanks for making old-school text drafts! I prefer this format over the videos and streams, since the reader is not the prisoner of the drafter's pace.
Some thoughts to your draft:
Pack 2 pick 3: Prioritizing two-drops early in an aggressive deck seems to me to be the better option here. At this point you just have two.
Pack 2 pick 4: I don't think you will splash in aggressive deck and so far you have neither revolt nor improvise. Leave in the Dust is a great tempo card in a evasion-heavy aggro deck.
Overall I think you drafted very well and found two open colors. The rather weak Kaladesh pack was not a result of your picks, it was just bad luck.
Deck:
I strongly disagree with your decision on playing the blue puzzleknot. The synergy with Gearseeker Serpent is not worth the inclusion. The puzzleknot doesn't do enough to be worth a card. The second Audacious Infiltrator would have been much better.
Also I think you run too many mana sources. 17 lands + the map is too much. You don't have good mana sinks in the late game, just the automaton-scrys and the serpent, to make use of that many mana sources.
Yeah, at one point I wasn't sure if it was cluelessness or intentional trolling, but I think it's gotten pretty clear as time has gone along.
Yes, a judge was an eyewitness, he then interviewed eyewitnesses and took into account all available evidence at hand (ie. actual fact finding) to determine the likely intention.
(Now it dawns on me why Wizards gave us the sideboard card "Feed the Clan" rather than "Feed the Trolls". Sage advice for such a pesky matchup as this one. I should have taken the advice, and I will take it in future by not responding to further incoherence).
Are you blind ? They write "... for intentionally misrepresenting the game state...".
Whats up here, they have the skills of Sigmund Freud times 10 or do mtg-players grow a long red nose when they speak non-truths at tournaments ?
Ah, now I just need to figure out which troll you are. The Lotleth Troll or the Troll Ascetic?
Actually, I sincerely hope you are Thrun, the Last Troll.
A whole lot of assumptions and claims.
Yes, you must inform your opponent when there is a life discrepancy, whether or not it benefits you. Wizards could have therefore worded the statement better.
However, you are being overly harsh and nitpicking. You ignore the context of Wizards' statement, which involved an incident that was more than just a simple life discrepancy. The discrepancy was due to a person making an illegal attack, and then realising that it was an illegal attack BECAUSE of the discrepancy. Not informing about the discrepancy here falls under the "Cheating" section of the Tournament Rules, because the player either knew or discovered that it was an illegal play, then adjusted himself to pretend that he actually attacked with a different creature. This is cheating.
Anyone can create a good show. As long as they worked hard. - Steven C Wyer
There is a need to track it. These values matter. - Steven C Wyer
Also when you do not benefit. Benefiting or not is irrelevant.
:Benefiting or not has no bearing whatsoever on any obligation to inform someone, opponent/judge or whoever.
This just proves you don't even know the rules you are arguing about.
They state that you have exactly this obligation.
Kindly noted Paul and AJ, thank you for your tips.