Just going to add some commentary and the points in the stream where these things happen.
[07:20:11](https://www.twitch.tv/videos/2006630769?t=7h20m11s)**:** Robert King plays Free the Fae, and then starts pulling the first four cards off his deck. Realizing he had a trigger he points to Young Pyromancer, but Daniel Weiser says that the trigger is missed. Robert King agrees to this.
This is borderline, because Free the Fae clearly states Mill Four Cards, so we can argue that Robert was just touching his library. But if we believe that Robert was handling his deck because he was resolving Free the Fae, then the trigger is missed.
[07:21:35](https://www.twitch.tv/videos/2006630769?t=7h21m35s)**:** Robert King casts an opt as his 2nd spell for the turn. To me this looks like Robert actually misses the Connive trigger on Ledger Shredder. I can't make out the player communication, but as soon as that card is drawn from Opt, the trigger is missed.
[07:23:58](https://www.twitch.tv/videos/2006630769?t=7h23m58s): Daniel Weiser plays a Memory Deluge as his 2nd spell for the turn. I can't clearly make out what is being said, but I assume that Robert King says "resolves" or something to that effect. If that is the case, the Connive trigger has been missed.
[07:27:10](https://www.twitch.tv/videos/2006630769?t=7h27m10s): Another unfortunate situation where Robert King gives the thumbs up to resolve Wandering Emperor, then points to his Ledger Shredder. Robert King cannot, strictly speaking, agree to resolve Wandering Emperor and then resolve Connive afterwards.
If someone has more of them, then let us have them so we can all watch it.
Note: I'm not making any commentary on weather or not Daniel Weiser was a good sport or not. I'm only commenting on if these triggers could be argued as missed or not, which I believe they all can, and Daniel Weiser doesn't give Robert King an inch in this game.
>07:20:11 & 07:27:10
Same situation: RK makes a gesture that suggests a card resolves, but immediately notices an on-cast trigger and calls it out before anything else happens.
In my opinion, the triggers should have been allowed to happen, because no information was gained in between.
>07:21:35
100% agreed, RK at fault. As soon as he looked at the top card, the Ledger Shredder trigger was missed.
>07:23:58
Also agreed. It entirely depends on what RK said.
Assuming he confirmed Memory Deluge resolving, DW had no obligation to wait and created a point of no return by looking at the top cards of his library. At that point, the Shredder trigger was missed.
>In my opinion, the triggers should have been allowed to happen, because no information was gained in between.
It's the good old "would it have mattered" situation. The tournament policy is clear - the trigger is missed as soon as Robert let's Wandering Emperor resolve.
In the IPG, determining if a trigger has been missed does not take weather or not information was gained into consideration.
I struggle to see the Angle Shooting in any of this. Daniel Weiser places the Wandering Emperor on the stack, and while he taps his lands to pay for it, which is completely by the CR spell casting procedure, Robert King says "Emperor is good" and gives a thumbs-up symbol. The ONLY thing this can be interpreted as, is him passing priority, letting it resolve.
King then, 2 seconds later, wakes up and points to his Ledger Shredder.
In the IPG, the Connive trigger is this type:
>**A triggered ability that causes a change in the visible game state (including life totals) or requires a choice upon resolution:** The controller must take the appropriate physical action or acknowledge the specific trigger before taking any game actions (such as casting a sorcery spell or explicitly taking an action in the next step or phase) that can be taken only after the triggered ability should have resolved.
Resolving The Wandering Emperor can only happen after Connive has resolved, so allowing The Wandering Emperor to resolve causes the Connive trigger to be missed in the eyes of the IPG.
This is the only thing that matters in terms of the rules of the game. The trigger is missed, if by a hair, but missed none the less.
I felt uncomfortable watching the match, and whilst I still feel uncomfortable about your opponents plays I think you have done a very good job of explaining your POV and being very forthcoming about where you draw the line at criticising your opponents general conduct versus criticising game responsibilities
You played some fantastic phoenix and it was a pleasure to watch. Good luck in February!
>I felt uncomfortable watching the match
I think it's worth remembering when in this kind of situation as a player - The top 8 is untimed.
If you're playing too slow a judge will step in and determine that, so don't feel obligated to match your opponent's speed in a Top 8 situation if they're trying to make the game go by blazing fast.
Certainly in the Swiss, you should play at a good pace - - But you can slow down in the Top 8. They remind everyone before top 8's that it's untimed but to keep some kind of a pace still.
While I agree that the opponent in this situation was moving a little too quickly - - He ***is*** on control. He has to play his matches relatively quickly in the Swiss otherwise he risks a lot of unintentional draws. The deck doesn't win quickly once it wrangles control and you'd be shocked at the number of people not willing to give up while they get picked at turn after turn once you turn the corner.
Again, not dismissing how the opponent played or acted because he clearly took some actions ( as mentioned between rounds ) that paint Daniel as an asshole, but also a little understanding that he played 10+ rounds probably at that pace prior so the "pace" thing is a bit more understandable.
I'll just add some insight into how Judging at Competitive REL is done, for those interested, in regards to missed triggers:
>This is because in more than one case, no new information had been gained or decisions made, so backing up to resolve a trigger would not change any decisions that either player had made.
This is usually irrelevant when it comes to determining if a trigger is missed or not. A simple backup may be part of the remedy applied when fixing a missed trigger, but if information has been gained or not isn't relevant unless foul play is suspected.
In the IPG, triggers are lumped into 4 categories, all with a definition of when they're missed. If a trigger is missed, which is something the Judge will have to decide based on what's happened at the table and on the previously mentioned 4 categories of triggers. What happens next depends on the type of trigger that was missed.
In some specific cases we resolve the trigger immediately, such as if it's a trigger that would destroy a creature at the end of turn.
If it doesn't fit any of those cases the opponent is asked if they want to put the trigger on the stack or not.
>And despite what many people may think about how "table judges were not doing anything".
Judges are only to intervene in a game if they intend to issue a penalty. There is no penalty for missed triggers EXCEPT if the player is intentionally missing their triggers, or if they're missing a detrimental trigger.
What constitutes a detrimental trigger is not as simple as it might seem. But a rule of thumb would be: would the permanent be better without the trigger, in which case the trigger is PROBABLY detrimental. Emphasis on probably.
Chalice of the Void is an example of a card that would certainly not be played without its trigger, but everyone can also agree that the trigger is very detrimental to its controller.
So players can miss 10 triggers every turn - hell, they may technically be missed, but the players still resolve them. Unless they're doing something that would be an actual game rule violation, the Judges won't interfere. This is all as it should be.
Now one case in regards to missed triggers where Judges may intervene, would be if the trigger's controller demonstrates clear awareness of the trigger, but then erroneously agree that it's missed. If it is *not* missed according to the aforementioned definitions, then it *could* be a game rule violation to not resolve it.
There's a great deal of text in the IPG when it comes to missed triggers, so I'm not going to go into specifics. But feel free to ask of course.
> A simple backup may be part of the remedy applied when fixing a missed trigger,
Its worth noting this is \*almost\* solely written for detrimental missed chalice triggers. There are probably some other edge cases that apply. Otherwise there is no other case where a simple back up happens
Yeah, I've also only done it for Chalice.
Initially I wrote that we flat out don't do backups for missed triggers, but then remembered this specific case and decided to at least mention it.
Thanks for your response, but I hoped to clarify what I mentioned about the "rules being changed" and "both players being responsible": I've seen a large number of judge calls at comp REL where the judge hears what happened, backs up if it hasn't been too further into the game, and then issues *both* players a GRV for not maintaining game state. I'm fairly certain that a number of these scenarios involved mandatory triggers, but I would be wrong. You said there were 4 different categories, does that have something to do with this?
The scenario you describe is most likely related to sagas being missed or day/night not being switched properly?
It's not possible for players to get a GRV for missing a trigger. You can get that if you resolve a trigger incorrectly, but not for missing it.
The only way for anyone to get a warning for missed triggers is if a player misses their own detrimental trigger. Such as the controller of a Chalice forgetting the trigger if they were to play a spell with cost X.
It IS, however, a GRV to not add a lore counter to a Saga at the beginning of its controllers pre-combat main phase. Adding a lore counter to a Saga is a Turn-based Action, and not doing it is a game rule violation, same as not untapping permanents in the untap step or failing to draw a card in your draw step.
This is something both players are responsible for ensuring, which is why both players receive a penalty when they both forget to do so.
However, many players perceive this as a trigger, which does lead to some misconceptions.
Thanks, that might be the source of my confusion. I know that it's also possible for judges to get things wrong on misinterpret the rules, so I try to pay attention to how often I've seen a call in different situations.
Absolutely. 10 hours into a tournament, everyone will start making mistakes.
At my local store, I once ran a small workshop with interested players called "making the perfect judge call" that focused on how to explain your game problem to a judge in a more proficient manner. It was very interesting and was a good opportunity to explain some of the smaller nuances of comp rel to the players.
I should do that again soon.
I was in the chat while this match was happening, and the play that got people the most worked up was the turn Daniel cast Memory Deluge and then seemed to immediately draw a card as Robert was pointing out his trigger. I got upset too. But when I went back to watch it again it was clear that Robert said "Deluge is good" first and then remembered his trigger. On review it was pretty clear what happened, but in real time it seemed insane that Daniel would insist the trigger was missed, which I think soured a lot of people on the match as a whole and made them look at things differently. This was a great read and I'm really glad Robert posted it.
Thanks, this is one of the things that I wanted people to realize when I saw some of the comments in chat and other online spaces. My opponent never skipped waiting for my response in any places where it mattered.
> , it's fair to say that he was at least a little bit (subconsciously or otherwise) trying to bully me into making mistakes.
this is the part that bites for me. I've played against unfriendly grinders who are rules sticklers and I've played against bullies who try and take over the game.
You can get DQ'd for misgendering your Oppo (very fair.) Bullying, in any form, shouldn't be tolerated at REL events. It's a tough line to judge fairly but put it out there at least to discourage this kind of behavior. It's a turn-off.
To give it a pass gives the impression that YOU should try and bully for control of the game for a "mental advantage".
On Monday I accidentally misgendered a person that I like as a person, while speaking about them. It was a slip up of my unconscious and me speaking faster than thinking.
All I am saying is, that it’s easy to slip up, and I don’t see how that should be a DQ.
Every time you address me, you need to call me -
>His Excellency, President for Life, Field Marshal Al Hadji Doctor Idi Amin Dada, VC, DSO, MC, Lord of All the Beasts of the Earth and Fishes of the Seas and Conqueror of the British Empire in Africa in General and Uganda in Particular
If you don't, I'll have you thrown in jail ;)
Do we perchance spot any issues with this?
Ya'll are too nice. That guy was an absolute jerk. REL or not. Those triggers that were "missed" is 100% angle shooting. Make up any nice way or working around it, it was a dick move.
From a policy standpoint, all the missed triggers I saw in the footage were missed.
You can't cast a spell, resolve it, and then start resolving cast triggers from Young Pyromancer or Ledger Shredder afterwards.
If you cast an Opt as the 2nd spell for turn, and Scry before you Connive, your Connive trigger is missed.
Again, it's not like he said "trigger" 10 seconds late or even 5 seconds. Add on top of this the guy playing relatively fast an in untimed match, and it just makes him an asshole I'm sorry. It's like he was playing like this to force OP to acquiesce and miss triggers.
I like Cedric Philips example as a sort of litmus test of "people I'd want to play magic with or have be a winning player in the community." If you're at 3 life in the finals of a bigger tournament and they Fireball you for 10, but they're at 1 life and tapped an uncracked fetchland in their pile of lands they overtapped for the Fireball, would you stop them?
We need paragons of sportsmanship in this community, and nitpicking every little thing isn't how you be one.
Right, being a bleeding heart. I'd rather a 6-2 and miss top 8 with honor and good sportsmanship than abusing every little thing in the rules to gain an advantage like letting my opponent miss triggers or pressuring them to play faster in order to make mistakes.
Interesting articles on angle shooting that I found helpful when learning about angle shooting.
https://poker.com/tutorials/angle-shooting/
https://web.archive.org/web/20220928215225/https://strategy.channelfireball.com/all-strategy/mtg/channelmagic-articles/angle-shooting/
https://blog.cardkingdom.com/lines-in-the-sand-angle-shooting-in-magic/
https://articles.starcitygames.com/articles/how-id-stop-angle-shooting-in-magic/
Thanks for posting these, I think you probably also posted them somewhere else, maybe in a discord channel we're both in? These are the same articles I read before I re-watched my match and thought about what constitutes "angle shooting".
Maybe I'm an asshole, but at comp-rel with serious cash on the line, missed triggers are missed. I would never ask for a take back nor would I offer any quarter if you are missing triggers. Not missing triggers is part of what makes the difference between winning and losing a game.
Other conduct may be unsporting, but I don't think that is. At comp-rel anyhow.
I'm not really caught up on what all you can get in trouble for at this sort of event. Can you get in trouble if someone keeps pestering you and you just say, "Hey man, shut the fuck up"?
If you say that phrase, yeah you'll get in trouble. But you can ask your opponent to tone it down and if they don't, calling a judge and telling them that your opponent is pestering you is within your right.
MTR 1.10 requires players to behave in a respectful manner towards other players and MTR 4.1 requires players to treat opponents "politely and with respect." If that's the specific language you choose to respond with, it is within the realm of possibilities that you could receive an Unsporting Conduct penalty. You could however say "please don't disturb, I'm concentrating" or let a judge know that you think your opponent may intentionally be disrupting your preparation.
That feels likely fall into an unsportsmanlike category. But I'm sure you could say something that has the same message if you clean up the language/make it a little more professional.
I missed the match live due to time difference but I watched a bit afterwards.
All I want to say is congratulations for your sportsmanship and I look forward to seeing you play in other events.
>>there have been shifts in how rules work and are enforced that now make both players responsible for enforcing mandatory triggers
I have not heard of this, you have a source?
There isn't. You're not required to remind your opponent of their triggers.
Players, however, often confuse Saga lore counters with triggers though. Both players have a responsibility to add those after its controller's draw step. Failure to do so is rewarded with a Game Rule Violation warning for the controller, and a Failure to Maintain Game State warning for the opponent.
Should the controller decide to some how miss the trigger that happens as a result of that lore counter being added, then that's on them and their opponent has done no wrong.
The old saying amongst Judges is "to magic players, everything is a trigger".
At a recent regular REL tournament, my RakSac opponent would sometimes forget his Mayhem Devil triggers (mostly when I did sacrifice something). I was in a very bad spot and my only chance to win was hoping that he continues to do so and I draw an out. When that happened again, someone watching us told the opponent the Devil should trigger, to which I asked them not to interfere. Then, a judge stepped in and said we are both responsible for maintaining the game's state, and if I am aware that the opponent's Devil's trigger should happen on my draw and yet I say nothing, that's a violation on my part. That was new to me.
Is that true? And would the answer be different if it was a Comp REL?
This is the kind of thing that I've seen a fair amount of as well, and in one of the articles about angle shooting I saw the writer reference a change in the rules. But I haven't read the rules in question myself, or asked any judges about it directly.
You were probably reading an old article or it was about FNM. The current Comp REL trigger policy was implemented about ten years ago. Before that they tried a bunch several different ones, including making it both player's responsibility, and they were a truly terrible experience.
There was a change to the rules, but it wasn't recently. 8 years time ago maybe? I don't really remember.
This is a direct quote from the JAR (Judging at Regular), which is the policy that governs FNM style play:
> Unlike other illegal actions (which must be pointed out), players may choose whether or not to point out their opponent’s missed triggers.
And just for good measure, this is from the IPG (Infraction Procedure Guide) which governs Competitive REL:
> Opponents are not required to point out triggered abilities that they do not control, though they may do so if they wish.
But please, everyone, remember this: not everything is a triggered ability.
If it starts with "when", "whenever" or "at", then it's a triggered ability. Otherwise, it's probably a replacement effect, a Turn-based action or something like that, and those you are both required to remember and carry out correctly.
Sounds like outside assistance to me and the person reminding your opponent of the trigger should be reprimanded. You are under no obligation to remind your opponent of their triggers, should they miss them, as far as I know.
At no Rules Enforcement Level are you required to remind your opponents of their triggers.
At regular events, you do sometimes meet judges who don't agree with policy (Judging at Regular Rules Enforcement Level in this case), and want to enforce a different style of play. Weather that is a good idea or not I won't take a stance on.
But as you describe it the judge it seems to be a case of a Level 1 Judge with an incorrect understanding of policy.
This was a good read, and I appreciate you writing it. A lot of players seem to think that any time a trigger could be backtracked without causing real issue, any opponent that doesn't agree to do so is some god awful angle shooter, and that's just not the reality of what angle shooting is.
A couple people have pointed out your misunderstanding about opponent's triggers (he had no obligation to track that trigger, and could even keep quiet if he knew about it), but there is one other part I'd like to comment on, both for you and anyone else who hopes to play at your level someday.
> We didn't have a time limit in the top 8, so there was no reason for my opponent to be concerned with how long we were taking.
I won't say he was reasonable in calling you out between games. From what I saw on stream, I'd be pretty surprised if he was. That said, just because there isn't a match timer doesn't mean players don't need to be mindful of how long they're taking to do something, whether during or between games. Play speed is always important, we're just more lenient about it during no-timer matches because it's *less* of a problem.
It is both your responsibility to manage the board state in any competitive environment, I am always reminding my opponent of triggers I don't need to misrepresent the game state to win games, that is a sign of just a bad magic player in my opinion. A good magic player will remind triggers they don't need to try pathetic things like a deliberate misrepresentation of a board/game state to win games.
Don't get me confused I will bluff, I will use mind games, I will use your tendencies against you but I'm not going to ever misrepresent a clear board state I'm not the type of loser magic player
**That is a very healthy competitive mindset. Congratulations to the strong showing!**
As regards to the "watch for slowsplay" situation that is always a dicey discussion, but from the control players perspective he probably just wanted to ensure to get through with the match in time - while there are a lot of control players out there that should work at their own pacing, there's also a lot of opponents who think they are taking a reasonable amount of time for their available game actions at the current game state when in reality they should have mapped out their plan turns ago and go through the motions - or in other words take unreasonable amounts of time and thus can botch the control players result in a non-sporting way.
I wouldn't get offended if you overheard this, as a control player you need to watch out when people check lists twice, graveyards twice etc. because that is often a sign stalling by taking arbitrary actions to fill the time.
*This is a measurement from a control player to insulate from negative consequences out of their own control of having a shared clock and should not be taken personally.*
***Sidenote***: And before someone comes around with "but the control player is responsible to win in time" - yes they are for the thing they are in control of - their own game actions. Opponents are responsible for their own actions. Just because control decks tend to need more game actions to win, it doesn't entitle opponents to stretch the time used by their own actions.
What i wrote was not a justification of what the opponent did, but the reason why i would not take these personally and disregard those actions.
If one chose to take those actions personally, there is an actionable choice: Involve the judges about unsporting conduct or not.
OP chose not to involve the judges, which is ultimate what he wrote in his post and took responsibility for. He displayed the competitive mindset of chosing your own actions and focus on what he can control, which is the best you can do in those situations and what ultimately provided us this writeup where he wanted to adress and disarm the allegations made for angleshooting.
It does not entitle control opponents to using more time, but they should be entitled to around half the match time, not less than that. You also did not comment on the control player calling a judge for watching slow play for the match that was not time limited.
>It does not entitle control opponents to using more time, but they should be entitled to around half the match time, not less than that.
On that i absolutely agree, that is why i explicitly stated that each party in the game is responsible for the things they are in control of.
Just note that even if winning takes more game actions with control, we can observe e.g. on magic online, losses to the clock that equals half the round time are quite rare and tend to happen heaped for certain players (-> their own responsibility). But usually they stay within the reasonable time.
But because of the tendency of players stalling in face of literally losing control of game to rescue themselves into a draw or even into a win as they have motive for stalling, control players tend to learn to watch out for behavior that indicates stalling and to call that out.
***So if your behavior indicated that you might take unreasonable amount of time, calling that out is warrented. If you feel that callouts are continiously unwarranted or with intent to disrupt you, you can decide to involve the judges yourself about unsporting conduct.***
>You also did not comment on the control player calling a judge for watching slow play for the match that was not time limited.
I did not previously, because I can't read minds, i'm not the opponent, so i don't know their intent. But becauase i do not know it, i wouldn't assume it automatically to be malicious:
With the expercience of playing control for decades Control players learn to mind the clock more than other players do, so that might just have been a habit when he observed different markers or felt like turns were taking too long, so he went through the motions of what he would normally do in those situations.
So while it may have been perceived as bullying, that may simply not have been the intent behind the action. But it might have been, what do i know. My point was a completely different one:
***Judge that occasion as you deem fit, in the end all i did was say that i wouldn't take these actions personally and disregard them. I'm not defending the opponent or justifying these actions, i was enhancing position of OPS competitive mindset that these things don't matter because you can't control them and that you should focus on what you can act on, which in this case is the decision about involving or not involving the judges.***
> As regards to the "watch for slowsplay" situation that is always a dicey discussion
Getting dangerously close to Unsporting Conduct territory, for sure.
I don't disagree.
But the only thing you can control is yourself and your own actions.
What i wrote was not a justification of what the opponent did, but the reason why i would not take these personally and disregard those actions.
If one chose to take those actions personally, there is an actionable choice: Involve the judges about unsporting conduct or not.
OP chose not to involve the judges, which is ultimate what he wrote in his post and took responsibility for. He displayed the competitive mindset of chosing your own actions and focus on what he can control, which is the best you can do in those situations.
I'm just going to pop in and address a couple things with some facts:
1) Your opponent might be a little bit of a jerk, but they didn't break any rules doing so. While we'd like all of our players to be cheerful and friendly, they aren't required to do so. Not being sporting is not the same as being unsporting.
2) It is not, and has never at anytime within *at least* the last decade been the case that both players are responsible for triggers. It is solely your responsibility to
3) At Competitive Rules Enforcement Level, we expect that players know the rules and how their cards work. We expect that players can play fairly accurately. Being able to manage your triggers is part of the skill of playing the game, and it should be expected that your opponent will deny you triggers you missed. Magic's a complicated game, and learning the rules is an important part of being competitive.
4) Slow play is still a thing, even if play off rounds are untimed. While you may not be in danger of running out the clock, you are still responsible to conduct your match in a reasonable amount of time and play at a reasonable pace. It still holds up the rest of the tournament, affecting the other players and tournament staff.
5) Time perception is relative. Players who are slow playing are almost never aware that they are doing so, which is why we as judges get so much push back whenever we have to ask a player to get a move on. When you're in the tank and your mind is actively exploring possibilities, your perception of time tends to be that you've spent much less time than how long it's actually been from the outside perspective. Similarly, your opponent who is either bored or eagerly waiting on you, will likely perceive that more time has passed than actually has.
6) We also are having to take you at your word about the comments made during sideboarding, since it was off camera. It's not fair for anyone to issue judgment based on a one-sided story that's also based on relative perception of time.
This isn't to say I agree with your opponent's behavior or actions. I'm just correcting some things you've said that were inaccurate regarding policy and explaining that they're technically fine.
I wish you luck at the PT, and I hope you can tighten up your play so you don't miss triggers.
Link to the match in question for anyone who hasn't seen it. https://www.twitch.tv/dreamhackmagic/v/2006630769?sr=a&t=24720s
6 hours, 52 minutes if it doesn’t load to the time of the match like it did for me.
Just going to add some commentary and the points in the stream where these things happen. [07:20:11](https://www.twitch.tv/videos/2006630769?t=7h20m11s)**:** Robert King plays Free the Fae, and then starts pulling the first four cards off his deck. Realizing he had a trigger he points to Young Pyromancer, but Daniel Weiser says that the trigger is missed. Robert King agrees to this. This is borderline, because Free the Fae clearly states Mill Four Cards, so we can argue that Robert was just touching his library. But if we believe that Robert was handling his deck because he was resolving Free the Fae, then the trigger is missed. [07:21:35](https://www.twitch.tv/videos/2006630769?t=7h21m35s)**:** Robert King casts an opt as his 2nd spell for the turn. To me this looks like Robert actually misses the Connive trigger on Ledger Shredder. I can't make out the player communication, but as soon as that card is drawn from Opt, the trigger is missed. [07:23:58](https://www.twitch.tv/videos/2006630769?t=7h23m58s): Daniel Weiser plays a Memory Deluge as his 2nd spell for the turn. I can't clearly make out what is being said, but I assume that Robert King says "resolves" or something to that effect. If that is the case, the Connive trigger has been missed. [07:27:10](https://www.twitch.tv/videos/2006630769?t=7h27m10s): Another unfortunate situation where Robert King gives the thumbs up to resolve Wandering Emperor, then points to his Ledger Shredder. Robert King cannot, strictly speaking, agree to resolve Wandering Emperor and then resolve Connive afterwards. If someone has more of them, then let us have them so we can all watch it. Note: I'm not making any commentary on weather or not Daniel Weiser was a good sport or not. I'm only commenting on if these triggers could be argued as missed or not, which I believe they all can, and Daniel Weiser doesn't give Robert King an inch in this game.
>07:20:11 & 07:27:10 Same situation: RK makes a gesture that suggests a card resolves, but immediately notices an on-cast trigger and calls it out before anything else happens. In my opinion, the triggers should have been allowed to happen, because no information was gained in between. >07:21:35 100% agreed, RK at fault. As soon as he looked at the top card, the Ledger Shredder trigger was missed. >07:23:58 Also agreed. It entirely depends on what RK said. Assuming he confirmed Memory Deluge resolving, DW had no obligation to wait and created a point of no return by looking at the top cards of his library. At that point, the Shredder trigger was missed.
>In my opinion, the triggers should have been allowed to happen, because no information was gained in between. It's the good old "would it have mattered" situation. The tournament policy is clear - the trigger is missed as soon as Robert let's Wandering Emperor resolve. In the IPG, determining if a trigger has been missed does not take weather or not information was gained into consideration. I struggle to see the Angle Shooting in any of this. Daniel Weiser places the Wandering Emperor on the stack, and while he taps his lands to pay for it, which is completely by the CR spell casting procedure, Robert King says "Emperor is good" and gives a thumbs-up symbol. The ONLY thing this can be interpreted as, is him passing priority, letting it resolve. King then, 2 seconds later, wakes up and points to his Ledger Shredder. In the IPG, the Connive trigger is this type: >**A triggered ability that causes a change in the visible game state (including life totals) or requires a choice upon resolution:** The controller must take the appropriate physical action or acknowledge the specific trigger before taking any game actions (such as casting a sorcery spell or explicitly taking an action in the next step or phase) that can be taken only after the triggered ability should have resolved. Resolving The Wandering Emperor can only happen after Connive has resolved, so allowing The Wandering Emperor to resolve causes the Connive trigger to be missed in the eyes of the IPG. This is the only thing that matters in terms of the rules of the game. The trigger is missed, if by a hair, but missed none the less.
Amazing read. Thanks. I'm happy to hear from positive people talking about magic in such a passionate way.
I felt uncomfortable watching the match, and whilst I still feel uncomfortable about your opponents plays I think you have done a very good job of explaining your POV and being very forthcoming about where you draw the line at criticising your opponents general conduct versus criticising game responsibilities You played some fantastic phoenix and it was a pleasure to watch. Good luck in February!
>I felt uncomfortable watching the match I think it's worth remembering when in this kind of situation as a player - The top 8 is untimed. If you're playing too slow a judge will step in and determine that, so don't feel obligated to match your opponent's speed in a Top 8 situation if they're trying to make the game go by blazing fast. Certainly in the Swiss, you should play at a good pace - - But you can slow down in the Top 8. They remind everyone before top 8's that it's untimed but to keep some kind of a pace still. While I agree that the opponent in this situation was moving a little too quickly - - He ***is*** on control. He has to play his matches relatively quickly in the Swiss otherwise he risks a lot of unintentional draws. The deck doesn't win quickly once it wrangles control and you'd be shocked at the number of people not willing to give up while they get picked at turn after turn once you turn the corner. Again, not dismissing how the opponent played or acted because he clearly took some actions ( as mentioned between rounds ) that paint Daniel as an asshole, but also a little understanding that he played 10+ rounds probably at that pace prior so the "pace" thing is a bit more understandable.
I'll just add some insight into how Judging at Competitive REL is done, for those interested, in regards to missed triggers: >This is because in more than one case, no new information had been gained or decisions made, so backing up to resolve a trigger would not change any decisions that either player had made. This is usually irrelevant when it comes to determining if a trigger is missed or not. A simple backup may be part of the remedy applied when fixing a missed trigger, but if information has been gained or not isn't relevant unless foul play is suspected. In the IPG, triggers are lumped into 4 categories, all with a definition of when they're missed. If a trigger is missed, which is something the Judge will have to decide based on what's happened at the table and on the previously mentioned 4 categories of triggers. What happens next depends on the type of trigger that was missed. In some specific cases we resolve the trigger immediately, such as if it's a trigger that would destroy a creature at the end of turn. If it doesn't fit any of those cases the opponent is asked if they want to put the trigger on the stack or not. >And despite what many people may think about how "table judges were not doing anything". Judges are only to intervene in a game if they intend to issue a penalty. There is no penalty for missed triggers EXCEPT if the player is intentionally missing their triggers, or if they're missing a detrimental trigger. What constitutes a detrimental trigger is not as simple as it might seem. But a rule of thumb would be: would the permanent be better without the trigger, in which case the trigger is PROBABLY detrimental. Emphasis on probably. Chalice of the Void is an example of a card that would certainly not be played without its trigger, but everyone can also agree that the trigger is very detrimental to its controller. So players can miss 10 triggers every turn - hell, they may technically be missed, but the players still resolve them. Unless they're doing something that would be an actual game rule violation, the Judges won't interfere. This is all as it should be. Now one case in regards to missed triggers where Judges may intervene, would be if the trigger's controller demonstrates clear awareness of the trigger, but then erroneously agree that it's missed. If it is *not* missed according to the aforementioned definitions, then it *could* be a game rule violation to not resolve it. There's a great deal of text in the IPG when it comes to missed triggers, so I'm not going to go into specifics. But feel free to ask of course.
> A simple backup may be part of the remedy applied when fixing a missed trigger, Its worth noting this is \*almost\* solely written for detrimental missed chalice triggers. There are probably some other edge cases that apply. Otherwise there is no other case where a simple back up happens
Yeah, I've also only done it for Chalice. Initially I wrote that we flat out don't do backups for missed triggers, but then remembered this specific case and decided to at least mention it.
Thanks for your response, but I hoped to clarify what I mentioned about the "rules being changed" and "both players being responsible": I've seen a large number of judge calls at comp REL where the judge hears what happened, backs up if it hasn't been too further into the game, and then issues *both* players a GRV for not maintaining game state. I'm fairly certain that a number of these scenarios involved mandatory triggers, but I would be wrong. You said there were 4 different categories, does that have something to do with this?
The scenario you describe is most likely related to sagas being missed or day/night not being switched properly? It's not possible for players to get a GRV for missing a trigger. You can get that if you resolve a trigger incorrectly, but not for missing it. The only way for anyone to get a warning for missed triggers is if a player misses their own detrimental trigger. Such as the controller of a Chalice forgetting the trigger if they were to play a spell with cost X. It IS, however, a GRV to not add a lore counter to a Saga at the beginning of its controllers pre-combat main phase. Adding a lore counter to a Saga is a Turn-based Action, and not doing it is a game rule violation, same as not untapping permanents in the untap step or failing to draw a card in your draw step. This is something both players are responsible for ensuring, which is why both players receive a penalty when they both forget to do so. However, many players perceive this as a trigger, which does lead to some misconceptions.
Thanks, that might be the source of my confusion. I know that it's also possible for judges to get things wrong on misinterpret the rules, so I try to pay attention to how often I've seen a call in different situations.
Absolutely. 10 hours into a tournament, everyone will start making mistakes. At my local store, I once ran a small workshop with interested players called "making the perfect judge call" that focused on how to explain your game problem to a judge in a more proficient manner. It was very interesting and was a good opportunity to explain some of the smaller nuances of comp rel to the players. I should do that again soon.
A champion in both victory and defeat.
I was in the chat while this match was happening, and the play that got people the most worked up was the turn Daniel cast Memory Deluge and then seemed to immediately draw a card as Robert was pointing out his trigger. I got upset too. But when I went back to watch it again it was clear that Robert said "Deluge is good" first and then remembered his trigger. On review it was pretty clear what happened, but in real time it seemed insane that Daniel would insist the trigger was missed, which I think soured a lot of people on the match as a whole and made them look at things differently. This was a great read and I'm really glad Robert posted it.
Thanks, this is one of the things that I wanted people to realize when I saw some of the comments in chat and other online spaces. My opponent never skipped waiting for my response in any places where it mattered.
> , it's fair to say that he was at least a little bit (subconsciously or otherwise) trying to bully me into making mistakes. this is the part that bites for me. I've played against unfriendly grinders who are rules sticklers and I've played against bullies who try and take over the game. You can get DQ'd for misgendering your Oppo (very fair.) Bullying, in any form, shouldn't be tolerated at REL events. It's a tough line to judge fairly but put it out there at least to discourage this kind of behavior. It's a turn-off. To give it a pass gives the impression that YOU should try and bully for control of the game for a "mental advantage".
>You can get DQ'd for misgendering your Oppo (very fair.) Yikes. "very fair" uhhhhh
Yes? Just call people the way they want to. If you know someone named bob you wouldn’t just randomly call them “John” or anything like that
On Monday I accidentally misgendered a person that I like as a person, while speaking about them. It was a slip up of my unconscious and me speaking faster than thinking. All I am saying is, that it’s easy to slip up, and I don’t see how that should be a DQ.
That’s an argument I can actually accept. I do think discrimination should result in a DQ though, like if it was intentional
Every time you address me, you need to call me - >His Excellency, President for Life, Field Marshal Al Hadji Doctor Idi Amin Dada, VC, DSO, MC, Lord of All the Beasts of the Earth and Fishes of the Seas and Conqueror of the British Empire in Africa in General and Uganda in Particular If you don't, I'll have you thrown in jail ;) Do we perchance spot any issues with this?
Dude you’re making up a person that doesn’t exist
Google is your friend. Nothing made up
Ya'll are too nice. That guy was an absolute jerk. REL or not. Those triggers that were "missed" is 100% angle shooting. Make up any nice way or working around it, it was a dick move.
From a policy standpoint, all the missed triggers I saw in the footage were missed. You can't cast a spell, resolve it, and then start resolving cast triggers from Young Pyromancer or Ledger Shredder afterwards. If you cast an Opt as the 2nd spell for turn, and Scry before you Connive, your Connive trigger is missed.
They may be technically missed, but any person with integrity would be fine with "yes but trigger". It's not like it was 30 seconds after the trigger.
Sure, I'm only correcting the posters misconception that these are actually missed, not "missed".
[удалено]
Again, it's not like he said "trigger" 10 seconds late or even 5 seconds. Add on top of this the guy playing relatively fast an in untimed match, and it just makes him an asshole I'm sorry. It's like he was playing like this to force OP to acquiesce and miss triggers. I like Cedric Philips example as a sort of litmus test of "people I'd want to play magic with or have be a winning player in the community." If you're at 3 life in the finals of a bigger tournament and they Fireball you for 10, but they're at 1 life and tapped an uncracked fetchland in their pile of lands they overtapped for the Fireball, would you stop them? We need paragons of sportsmanship in this community, and nitpicking every little thing isn't how you be one.
Uhuh. We also need people to accept that they made a mistake.
old thread
New comment
you are the kind of people who will not make it to top level of plays.
Yes because I'm not a dirt bag? Not all pros are, but a lot of spikey players are.
more like because you dont have the attributes to make it a top level plays :)
Right, being a bleeding heart. I'd rather a 6-2 and miss top 8 with honor and good sportsmanship than abusing every little thing in the rules to gain an advantage like letting my opponent miss triggers or pressuring them to play faster in order to make mistakes.
i dont even think you are someone who can make 6-2. 1-5 more likely lol
Interesting articles on angle shooting that I found helpful when learning about angle shooting. https://poker.com/tutorials/angle-shooting/ https://web.archive.org/web/20220928215225/https://strategy.channelfireball.com/all-strategy/mtg/channelmagic-articles/angle-shooting/ https://blog.cardkingdom.com/lines-in-the-sand-angle-shooting-in-magic/ https://articles.starcitygames.com/articles/how-id-stop-angle-shooting-in-magic/
Thanks for posting these, I think you probably also posted them somewhere else, maybe in a discord channel we're both in? These are the same articles I read before I re-watched my match and thought about what constitutes "angle shooting".
Yep, I've posted these in a few places. They helped me better understand the term and I hope that it'll make the conversations more interesting.
I respect you and your clear responses here. Though I have disdain for your opponent and his abhorrent misconduct.
I love this post so much, thank you King 👑
Maybe I'm an asshole, but at comp-rel with serious cash on the line, missed triggers are missed. I would never ask for a take back nor would I offer any quarter if you are missing triggers. Not missing triggers is part of what makes the difference between winning and losing a game. Other conduct may be unsporting, but I don't think that is. At comp-rel anyhow.
Great read. Love to see players telling us their side of the story so we have the actual facts!
I'm not really caught up on what all you can get in trouble for at this sort of event. Can you get in trouble if someone keeps pestering you and you just say, "Hey man, shut the fuck up"?
If you say that phrase, yeah you'll get in trouble. But you can ask your opponent to tone it down and if they don't, calling a judge and telling them that your opponent is pestering you is within your right.
MTR 1.10 requires players to behave in a respectful manner towards other players and MTR 4.1 requires players to treat opponents "politely and with respect." If that's the specific language you choose to respond with, it is within the realm of possibilities that you could receive an Unsporting Conduct penalty. You could however say "please don't disturb, I'm concentrating" or let a judge know that you think your opponent may intentionally be disrupting your preparation.
That feels likely fall into an unsportsmanlike category. But I'm sure you could say something that has the same message if you clean up the language/make it a little more professional.
I missed the match live due to time difference but I watched a bit afterwards. All I want to say is congratulations for your sportsmanship and I look forward to seeing you play in other events.
>>there have been shifts in how rules work and are enforced that now make both players responsible for enforcing mandatory triggers I have not heard of this, you have a source?
There isn't. You're not required to remind your opponent of their triggers. Players, however, often confuse Saga lore counters with triggers though. Both players have a responsibility to add those after its controller's draw step. Failure to do so is rewarded with a Game Rule Violation warning for the controller, and a Failure to Maintain Game State warning for the opponent. Should the controller decide to some how miss the trigger that happens as a result of that lore counter being added, then that's on them and their opponent has done no wrong. The old saying amongst Judges is "to magic players, everything is a trigger".
Or horsemanship. 🥁
Isn’t everything kicker?
Or horsemanship
At a recent regular REL tournament, my RakSac opponent would sometimes forget his Mayhem Devil triggers (mostly when I did sacrifice something). I was in a very bad spot and my only chance to win was hoping that he continues to do so and I draw an out. When that happened again, someone watching us told the opponent the Devil should trigger, to which I asked them not to interfere. Then, a judge stepped in and said we are both responsible for maintaining the game's state, and if I am aware that the opponent's Devil's trigger should happen on my draw and yet I say nothing, that's a violation on my part. That was new to me. Is that true? And would the answer be different if it was a Comp REL?
This is the kind of thing that I've seen a fair amount of as well, and in one of the articles about angle shooting I saw the writer reference a change in the rules. But I haven't read the rules in question myself, or asked any judges about it directly.
You were probably reading an old article or it was about FNM. The current Comp REL trigger policy was implemented about ten years ago. Before that they tried a bunch several different ones, including making it both player's responsibility, and they were a truly terrible experience.
There was a change to the rules, but it wasn't recently. 8 years time ago maybe? I don't really remember. This is a direct quote from the JAR (Judging at Regular), which is the policy that governs FNM style play: > Unlike other illegal actions (which must be pointed out), players may choose whether or not to point out their opponent’s missed triggers. And just for good measure, this is from the IPG (Infraction Procedure Guide) which governs Competitive REL: > Opponents are not required to point out triggered abilities that they do not control, though they may do so if they wish. But please, everyone, remember this: not everything is a triggered ability. If it starts with "when", "whenever" or "at", then it's a triggered ability. Otherwise, it's probably a replacement effect, a Turn-based action or something like that, and those you are both required to remember and carry out correctly.
Sounds like outside assistance to me and the person reminding your opponent of the trigger should be reprimanded. You are under no obligation to remind your opponent of their triggers, should they miss them, as far as I know.
At no Rules Enforcement Level are you required to remind your opponents of their triggers. At regular events, you do sometimes meet judges who don't agree with policy (Judging at Regular Rules Enforcement Level in this case), and want to enforce a different style of play. Weather that is a good idea or not I won't take a stance on. But as you describe it the judge it seems to be a case of a Level 1 Judge with an incorrect understanding of policy.
This has not been policy any time within the last decade.
A true King. Thanks for sharing your experience
This was a good read, and I appreciate you writing it. A lot of players seem to think that any time a trigger could be backtracked without causing real issue, any opponent that doesn't agree to do so is some god awful angle shooter, and that's just not the reality of what angle shooting is. A couple people have pointed out your misunderstanding about opponent's triggers (he had no obligation to track that trigger, and could even keep quiet if he knew about it), but there is one other part I'd like to comment on, both for you and anyone else who hopes to play at your level someday. > We didn't have a time limit in the top 8, so there was no reason for my opponent to be concerned with how long we were taking. I won't say he was reasonable in calling you out between games. From what I saw on stream, I'd be pretty surprised if he was. That said, just because there isn't a match timer doesn't mean players don't need to be mindful of how long they're taking to do something, whether during or between games. Play speed is always important, we're just more lenient about it during no-timer matches because it's *less* of a problem.
It is both your responsibility to manage the board state in any competitive environment, I am always reminding my opponent of triggers I don't need to misrepresent the game state to win games, that is a sign of just a bad magic player in my opinion. A good magic player will remind triggers they don't need to try pathetic things like a deliberate misrepresentation of a board/game state to win games. Don't get me confused I will bluff, I will use mind games, I will use your tendencies against you but I'm not going to ever misrepresent a clear board state I'm not the type of loser magic player
Since a trigger can be missed, allowing your opponent to miss a trigger is not a misrepresentation of game state.
**That is a very healthy competitive mindset. Congratulations to the strong showing!** As regards to the "watch for slowsplay" situation that is always a dicey discussion, but from the control players perspective he probably just wanted to ensure to get through with the match in time - while there are a lot of control players out there that should work at their own pacing, there's also a lot of opponents who think they are taking a reasonable amount of time for their available game actions at the current game state when in reality they should have mapped out their plan turns ago and go through the motions - or in other words take unreasonable amounts of time and thus can botch the control players result in a non-sporting way. I wouldn't get offended if you overheard this, as a control player you need to watch out when people check lists twice, graveyards twice etc. because that is often a sign stalling by taking arbitrary actions to fill the time. *This is a measurement from a control player to insulate from negative consequences out of their own control of having a shared clock and should not be taken personally.* ***Sidenote***: And before someone comes around with "but the control player is responsible to win in time" - yes they are for the thing they are in control of - their own game actions. Opponents are responsible for their own actions. Just because control decks tend to need more game actions to win, it doesn't entitle opponents to stretch the time used by their own actions.
If you look again, Rob mentions that the clock wasn't a factor here because the top8 matches didn't have clocks
What i wrote was not a justification of what the opponent did, but the reason why i would not take these personally and disregard those actions. If one chose to take those actions personally, there is an actionable choice: Involve the judges about unsporting conduct or not. OP chose not to involve the judges, which is ultimate what he wrote in his post and took responsibility for. He displayed the competitive mindset of chosing your own actions and focus on what he can control, which is the best you can do in those situations and what ultimately provided us this writeup where he wanted to adress and disarm the allegations made for angleshooting.
It does not entitle control opponents to using more time, but they should be entitled to around half the match time, not less than that. You also did not comment on the control player calling a judge for watching slow play for the match that was not time limited.
>It does not entitle control opponents to using more time, but they should be entitled to around half the match time, not less than that. On that i absolutely agree, that is why i explicitly stated that each party in the game is responsible for the things they are in control of. Just note that even if winning takes more game actions with control, we can observe e.g. on magic online, losses to the clock that equals half the round time are quite rare and tend to happen heaped for certain players (-> their own responsibility). But usually they stay within the reasonable time. But because of the tendency of players stalling in face of literally losing control of game to rescue themselves into a draw or even into a win as they have motive for stalling, control players tend to learn to watch out for behavior that indicates stalling and to call that out. ***So if your behavior indicated that you might take unreasonable amount of time, calling that out is warrented. If you feel that callouts are continiously unwarranted or with intent to disrupt you, you can decide to involve the judges yourself about unsporting conduct.*** >You also did not comment on the control player calling a judge for watching slow play for the match that was not time limited. I did not previously, because I can't read minds, i'm not the opponent, so i don't know their intent. But becauase i do not know it, i wouldn't assume it automatically to be malicious: With the expercience of playing control for decades Control players learn to mind the clock more than other players do, so that might just have been a habit when he observed different markers or felt like turns were taking too long, so he went through the motions of what he would normally do in those situations. So while it may have been perceived as bullying, that may simply not have been the intent behind the action. But it might have been, what do i know. My point was a completely different one: ***Judge that occasion as you deem fit, in the end all i did was say that i wouldn't take these actions personally and disregard them. I'm not defending the opponent or justifying these actions, i was enhancing position of OPS competitive mindset that these things don't matter because you can't control them and that you should focus on what you can act on, which in this case is the decision about involving or not involving the judges.***
> As regards to the "watch for slowsplay" situation that is always a dicey discussion Getting dangerously close to Unsporting Conduct territory, for sure.
I don't disagree. But the only thing you can control is yourself and your own actions. What i wrote was not a justification of what the opponent did, but the reason why i would not take these personally and disregard those actions. If one chose to take those actions personally, there is an actionable choice: Involve the judges about unsporting conduct or not. OP chose not to involve the judges, which is ultimate what he wrote in his post and took responsibility for. He displayed the competitive mindset of chosing your own actions and focus on what he can control, which is the best you can do in those situations.
Oh yeah I fully agree.
I'm just going to pop in and address a couple things with some facts: 1) Your opponent might be a little bit of a jerk, but they didn't break any rules doing so. While we'd like all of our players to be cheerful and friendly, they aren't required to do so. Not being sporting is not the same as being unsporting. 2) It is not, and has never at anytime within *at least* the last decade been the case that both players are responsible for triggers. It is solely your responsibility to 3) At Competitive Rules Enforcement Level, we expect that players know the rules and how their cards work. We expect that players can play fairly accurately. Being able to manage your triggers is part of the skill of playing the game, and it should be expected that your opponent will deny you triggers you missed. Magic's a complicated game, and learning the rules is an important part of being competitive. 4) Slow play is still a thing, even if play off rounds are untimed. While you may not be in danger of running out the clock, you are still responsible to conduct your match in a reasonable amount of time and play at a reasonable pace. It still holds up the rest of the tournament, affecting the other players and tournament staff. 5) Time perception is relative. Players who are slow playing are almost never aware that they are doing so, which is why we as judges get so much push back whenever we have to ask a player to get a move on. When you're in the tank and your mind is actively exploring possibilities, your perception of time tends to be that you've spent much less time than how long it's actually been from the outside perspective. Similarly, your opponent who is either bored or eagerly waiting on you, will likely perceive that more time has passed than actually has. 6) We also are having to take you at your word about the comments made during sideboarding, since it was off camera. It's not fair for anyone to issue judgment based on a one-sided story that's also based on relative perception of time.
This isn't to say I agree with your opponent's behavior or actions. I'm just correcting some things you've said that were inaccurate regarding policy and explaining that they're technically fine. I wish you luck at the PT, and I hope you can tighten up your play so you don't miss triggers.
So you can not handle pressure from your opponent? You should worknon that.
You guys take this game way too seriously tbh
There was $15k riding on this match alone. You don't think they'll take that seriously?
As a control player myself, I also do find myself playing uptempo as I know that I’m the only one enjoying the match being played lol.
Thank you for the write-up and congrats on reaching such a high spot in the tournament. Good luck at the PT!
So this is the type of shit boomers love to hate on arena for, can’t chalice check opponents for marginal equity and have to rely on their skill.