Arsenal Pass Ep164 - Part the Mistveil Classic Constructed Impact

[@dihimono]

For the context of judge not enforcing slow play: previously, if the penalty for a infraction will result to a caution, a judge is instructed to not intervene proactively. Slow play was a caution at first (and upgraded to warning/game loss afterwards). The new PPG now set slow play as an exception for such criteria now.

[@Shh-Silence]

Damn didn’t know Brendan was that ripped. Looking good!

[@very_grey]

I think Enigma is solid. Not broken but not a bad deck either. It's pretty difficult to play, and I think it's difficult to figure out how to play against. Once people figure out how to play against it, I think it will land as a A-B tier deck that will get some top 8's here and there but not be meta dominant until they print something that helps against ward popping.

[@MichaelDevinCawvey]

@arsenalpass Command and Cookout question: has Hayden ever considered that the reason he loves Rhinar but can never play him is because he is an Aussie and keeps thinking it is Rhi”naur” and just subconsciously says nope to it? This stupid thought lives rent free in my brain. Love the pod and best of luck in upcoming events.

[@dusfim3140]

Great pod! Awesome hearing Azalea get such praise! It might finally be my time 😅🏹

[@Jernyman]

Push FaB in Hawaii more! There's only 1 store supporting it on Oahu and 2 on Big Island, and we often have to fly between islands just for RtN/proquest. We need more!

[@michaelcawvey7142]

So I want to ask if I’m misreading the rules update, or if maybe the discussion in the show was a bit unclear? As I read it, discussing future turns after time is not “asking for a concession” in a way that is punishable, but rather counts as deciding to play out the game rather than concede to remove any influence or pressure created by talking about game state to an opponent and maybe trying to convince them to concede by discussing their position at end of game. If someone does something benign like discuss game state, the worst outcome is that they play out the game because no one can concede now, not that they get a game loss. Additionally, the new rules update specifically discusses allowing prize splits as long as they are not tied to the outcome of the game, and that people will have to play out the game (but that they are allowed to discuss prize splits as long as there is no bribe involved). Since the statement from LSS specifically says that in the event of a player declaring no blocks until they lose they will not be punished, this actually is a move toward more lenient policy regarding discussing prize splits in front of judge and TO. It has the unfortunate downside that you have to play out the game, but it also means that based on the wording of policy if you discuss prize split and agree to something like “player x gets the invite and player y gets the gold foil” for a pq, then you cannot concede to make that happen bc you discussed a prize split, but also cannot be punished for the discussion and then just declaring no blocks until one player dies. It’s a weird policy when you read the tournament rules pdf in conjunction with the statement they posted since it actually makes it easier to discuss in front of judges and TO, but then requires that the judge and TO watch you play a game that is already decided.

[@lifitcg]

"As I read it, discussing future turns after time is not “asking for a concession” in a way that is punishable, but rather counts as deciding to play out the game rather than concede to remove any influence or pressure created by talking about game state to an opponent and maybe trying to convince them to concede by discussing their position at end of game." It pretty unambiguously says any discussion of future turns after time is called is considered asking for a concession and therefore is not allowed. If you want to decide to play out the game (i.e, play the final turn you are allocated) then you just go ahead and keep playing. You don't need any kind of special discussion about it. The weirdest thing about the announcement to me was the statement "As such we will also be investigating how players may rearrange placement-based prizes, so that concessions will not be required for a player to receive a certain prize." It sounds like what they want to do overall is move from "The winner gets X prize and the loser gets Y prize. Ok I concede" to "I will get X prize and you will get Y prize regardless of result. Now we play the match anyway for the honour/fun/LLpoints" but to me it's not clear whether that latter arrangement is actually allowed or not. What do they need to 'investigate' exactly

[@michaelcawvey7142]

@@lifitcg oh wow, I totally combined the second and third bullet points in my memory. Yeah I think what you said about investigating is probably where they should end up and it is kind of ridiculous that they don’t just allow that and we end up in a weird spot where you can discuss prize split, but have to play the game once you do, AND prizes are still tied to finish right now. Like doing prize split and first place gets the invite means you still have to lose to split prizes for pq or something, now you just have to throw the game instead of playing it out, but LSS specifically says you can’t be punished for it. That feels somehow worse than players conceding the finals. The result is the same but everyone has to sit around and watch people play a bad game as bonus punishment for the finalist prize splitting. Wtf

[@Obwoodlandj]

Oh shit the guns are out

[@minionpeter]

Danm brendan you look huuuge, strong man

[@brimzw]

Your note about "knowing how to break the rules in the right way" or "skirt around the rules" resonates super hard. Its so frustrating to watch people angle shoot their way to wins or manipulate their opponent into misplaying by constantly talking to them when they are trying to take their turn. I will be honest, I'm not sure what the rules actually are but its one of my pet peeves seeing someone be super sleazy at something like a PTQ and be lauded for it because they perform well at higher level events. Its super subjective, but it would be really nice to see more people "play the game the right way" instead of trying to bend the rules as hard as they can or skirt their way around them and then throw their hands up like they are innocent when they are called out on it. They may technically be innocent, but they are still being a dingus.

[@fabrocny1618]

In your opinion, what do think the time frame of a turn is? And should be? 1 to 3 minutes tops? Just wondering. Maybe LSS needs implement a time limit on each player's turn. Except in the top 8. Instead of looking for slow play. Nip it the bud. It's an obvious problem since they have addressed this. Thank you for these conversations that you bring with arsenal pass. Much appreciated.

[@vasilboev1383]

yeah but what happens when you have priority on the opponent's turn? Kano starts calculating and thinking how to OTK on you turn and if there's only a timer on the player's turn I can just sit there and think about my blocks until your time runs out - what then?

[@lasterman94100]

The problem with a turn-based time limit is that just like chess, the length of a turn can vary tremendously depending on the hand/context/state of the game. Also, length of your turn is in part dependent of the time your opponent takes to block/react, so how do you consider that in your own turn, especially against a Wizard for example. The fairest thing they could do is have 25 min clock for each player like chess, but that would be really killing the cool part of the game, then again, I am nowhere near the level of play where it really start to matter that much...

[@mooberrypie2637]

I typically enjoy listening to you both. But as soon as you said “I haven’t played against Enigma” I stopped listening. How are you going to try and tell me how the CC meta is affected by a new hero you’ve never played against?

[@MrEmm]

first