Did the WINNER of the Pro Tour actually CHEAT? - MTG Rules - MH3

[@attackoncardboard]

Correction 14/7 - @ 2:30, I called this person at the table a Judge. This is not correct. I have just been informed they are a coverage spotter. They are purely there to relay lay score information and hand out tokens. THEY ARE NOT A JUDGE. They are not meant to correct play errors. However they can stop play and call a Judge over. Tiniest correction - During the Missed Ring section (5:39), I said Simon cast Endurance at the END of Javiers turn. He actually cast it *in response* to the One Ring.

[@busterbros]

Yeah, otherwise it would have been the same issue as the Suncleanser since Endurance targets a player.

[@MrKarato]

​@@seanhardner5842 Yes, as mentioned, that's not against the rules. Is it scummy? Sure. But it's legal.

[@3rdtimesacharm84]

@@MrKarato Its legal to target something that has protection from being targeted? It's not a legal target. Just like the first instance of cheating, the opponent should receive a game loss for this as you should be consistent with rules violations. Assuming without knowledge that the player is aware of and is intentionally doing something against the rule is fine as long as you are doing this with everyone consistently.

[@andrewwang7699]

@3rdtimesacharm84 It’s not illegal to miss your beneficial triggers, it is not the opponent’s job to tell you you missed your beneficial triggers, and it’s not illegal to make plays assuming they missed their beneficial trigger if they did not mention it.

[@3rdtimesacharm84]

@@andrewwang7699 What beneficial trigger was missed? Both the player and the opponent were aware that the player had protection from everything. Are you suggesting that the player who played the ring didn't know of this effect? If so, please list your source on this. What was missed was that a card that had no legal target, targeted anyway. All I am stating is you should be consistent with any actions taken to violate rules. Anything you're saying can be applied to the first scenario, yet in the first scenario we say the judges were ok in giving a game loss? Since I agree that the first scenario should result in a game loss, I am simply being consistent by saying the second scenario should result in the same.

[@atheistmantis1264]

I blame it on the judges here. Handing over the token? Dude you're there to prevent these things from happening ...

[@allaricdeschain]

this, the judge is the only one in this video who is mentally fresh

[@williamw8590]

Tbf to the judge, we only see the one time they miss something, not the dozens of saves they probably made that day

[@Sqweegi]

Nah, weird to give the judges benefit of doubt for no reason other than they are a judge ​@williamw8590

[@williamw8590]

@@Sqweegi what do you mean by this? Becoming a judge is hard, especially a judge at the pro tour. Being mad at the judge is weirder

[@dinomiah]

​@@williamw8590 Right but it's hard because they want to make sure you don't miss stuff like that. Seems pretty clear there was cheating, but the judge could've intervened during the game and made everything cleaner.

[@AndreaGiuseppeCastriotta]

Javier seems to not be able to catch a break! Poor dude, it's kinda "funny" all these situations happened to him

[@attackoncardboard]

Yeah, the odds of this happening to one guy are so unbelievable but it all happened and all caught on tape too 😂 **Edit** I just learnt about the land incident in Round 5 with Javier. WTH! How does this happening to him!

[@williamw8590]

To be fair tho, he could/should have caught both of these things. The ring one especially was on him!

[@christopherreed8996]

If he had a better understanding, or paid better attention, he could have prevented at least 2 of the 3

[@nickprather3250]

You mean both things a pro level player should have caught. Javier needs to remember his triggers.

[@AndreaGiuseppeCastriotta]

I agree that he should have been a bit more careful, but I guess we are underestimating the mental toll a multi-day pro-level tournament, in which you play basically non-stop against the best of the best, takes on someone. This drains SO MUCH energy, despite being one of the "best of the best" yourself. Moreover the cheating incident (so disappointment of not be in the top 8 that leads to a "relaxation" to not have to play anymore, followed by the news that "lol jk, you are in top 8 actually, get ready for a new play") would distract anyone. Last data in the equation, all these being feature matches, streamed live (so extra extra pressure) Even if you do this every day, even the smallest stress these situations cause would made you make small mistakes that in the long run result in a match-decisive situation. The one ring non having any reminder + the fact that from destroying the one ring to the targeting of Javier the two talked about land count and assested the board, is 200% understandeable

[@sebastiangomezbotero7765]

Magic is awesome in its own complex ways but man watching pro players at the highest competitive scene misplay or "cheat" feels really frustrating, specially knowing there are capable judges and bystanders that can call out this stuff or is it that they don't baby sit matches enough?

[@attackoncardboard]

Featured matches and Top 8s are baby sat by judges. That's why you see a Judge immediately walk over to Simon when he accidentally tries to shuffle Javiers deck. I was surprised that the Judge didnt say something about the Gofy during Bart's game. The Judge is even 'controlling' the Gofy dice that is on the table on the left side of the clip.

[@joshua_lee732]

The judges are only allowed to step in at certain points though. And the judges sitting back at the feature match is there to aid the feature match coverage and is held to that standard even higher.

[@mircodurrbaum9064]

the fact that there are judges at an event does not by any means automatically mean they are capable .....experienced wrong rulings about cascade by judges at qualifyer events

[@dippythehippy]

If judges babysat enough to prevent all misplays it would be extremely frustrating for everyone involved.

[@orgazmo686971]

@@mircodurrbaum9064 I'm curious...you experienced it? How did a judge mess up cascade?

[@siubijeni206]

I get that the first guy having a history of cheating is a mitigating factor, but the presentation of "this guy unambiguously knew what he was doing and tried to cheat" vs the last guy's "absolutely not, there's no way he was doing that purposefully to cheat" is kinda two-faced. Especially since, unlike the first guy, there's no mention of interviews or anything else to indicate his mindset. There is some ambiguity there. Is he likely trying to cheat? Maybe not. Could he have been? Absolutely.

[@moaf2padventures757]

well said. known cheaters accidentally make game play errors too.

[@cdude665]

100% correct! Very well said and this comment needs more likes

[@gabrielbostic3694]

This was my take on it. He may have a history, but we haven't actually seen what the judge in question considered confirmation. Unless bart said he knew what he was doing and did it on purpose, what could he possibly have said?

[@thraxus6661]

The difference is that the goyf getting a wicked role token actually won him the game where as the deck being shuffled, which honestly on camera it seems like he reversed the cut he did but idk, very likely could have won or lost him the game. Like with any game too, you treat repeat offenders with harsher punishments. Simon has never been caught intentionally cheating, where as Bart has multiple times. During the event, you saw some judges talking to the players between rounds as well. This was likely when a warning about violations was given

[@marcusanthony9322]

The video was based pretty much on definitions and semantics, ethically and morally they both cheated however due to the rules Simon "technically" didn't cheat

[@mumblingbeardedfreak4238]

Man the Judges really are the problem in both cases. MAYBE wizards removing incentives from judges was a bad idea after all

[@FlyingCacti]

Even moreso in the second case, in the first it's somewhat convoluted but who doesn't know what One Ring does at this point to let that stand?

[@codetaku]

Judging in general feels like it's gone downhill bigtime. Who wants to be a protour judge when you know you'll be working under shitheads like the head judge of PT Ireland 2017? That dude should've been demoted for forcing a player to skip his beginning of combat step when the objectively right call was to just rewind to putting the trigger on the stack (which had valid targets, the vehicle he wanted to target simply wasn't one of them).

[@celebrirtyelcarah431]

@@FlyingCacti You misunderstand something that was maybe not completly explained in the video. You never have to point out your opponents missed trigger. It is their job. At the same time, judges aren't allowed to remember a person about this missed trigger. Again, it is the players responsibility to remember them. At tournament level (Comprehensive rules combined with Tournament Rules) no rules were broken, no judge needs to interrupt the game

[@joshdavis3743]

@@codetaku It has been 7 years man, move on at some point. Especially since I assume this didn't personally affect you.

[@killemdeader1189]

@@FlyingCacti its very easy to miss the cast trigger when ring is no longer in play. it was cast, then removed, and there was no visual indicator on the board to remember ToR protection as active so both players missed it. not a difficult mistake, esp when other game actions happen inbetween.

[@thejimshep2503]

I find it wild that the only difference between the sun cleanser being legal or illegal is that Javier didn’t announce the cast trigger. If he had, Simon would have been “cheating” by knowingly targeting a player with protection. The especially sad thing about the Javie/Nielsen match is the relaxed vibe they had between each other. They are teammates and had played that match 20 times before they bumped into each other in the tournament. They played and talked with each other like it was just another game at the kitchen table. That relaxed environment allowed extremely important misplays to go unnoticed.

[@Nawxder]

It still wouldn't be cheating. If the trigger was announced before, it would be a game rules violation and usually a warning. If it hadn't been announced until he tries to target him, then its not even a rules violation.

[@attackoncardboard]

Cheating and a Game Rule Violation are two different things. If the trigger was announced, it would have just been a GRV for Simon.

[@OMGclueless]

@@attackoncardboard But as we just saw, a GRV committed intentionally with the purpose of gaining an advantage is considered cheating. If Simon knew that Javier had protection because Javier had announced his trigger, then targeting him with Suncleanser would be a GRV and lead to the exact same type of investigation as with Bart. The only justification for Simon's play is that he doesn't know whether or not Javier has protection because he doesn't know whether or not the trigger was missed. If he *knows* the trigger was not missed and the judges found he *intentionally* did it anyways, it's cheating.

[@DOCTORBARGO]

​​@@attackoncardboard bro did you even watch your own video? The entire first part was how at pro level events players are held at the highest standard, so are these standards not supposed to upheld during finals. Oh and that whole long day of magic defense could also be used for Bart and I would say is even more crucial for him since on Saturday they also had draft and modern while Sunday was just top 8.

[@dmv99]

@@OMGclueless he didn't attack Javier... if Javier didn't phase out, why not attack him??? 1000% Simon knew he was cheating come on now

[@Kuervoo_0]

Either if players are intentionally cheating or not , in these professional events judges should play attention at what players are doing since it s their job. In the goyf clip the judge hands the token to the player, while he should have instead pointed out the error. In the 3 scenarios i dont think it is a player issue but a lack of attention from the judges

[@blackr4inbow]

Feature match area has additional rules for both players and judges. Judges have limitations on their interactions to disrupt the flow of the game as well. Not to mention judges are taught that when in doubt, inaction is preferred. Being a judge at those bigger events like pro tours is also a LOT of work for the judge, it's more than just hey sit down and watch some people play magic. judges are also humans, they miss stuff and make mistakes too, they also usually assume that people know their cards and interactions.

[@Lucifer04289]

​@@blackr4inbowIt feels like everyone missed the play. Honestly if Javier's opponent wasn't a known cheater, I could really believe this was just an accident

[@blackr4inbow]

@@Lucifer04289 honestly? probably everyone missed it, it happens quite fast and everyone has a lot on their minds. just that you can't expect judges to notice and act on everything. thats all

[@TheGamblingisgood]

'Everyone missed it' leaves out the point that javier's opponent can be presumed to know his own deck and it's interactions. Giving a goyf +1/+1 by casting an instant is an incredibly common interaction. When it's *your* deck and *your* actions under scrutiny, presumption of innocence is hard to apply.

[@ZakanaHachihaCBC]

The judge hands the token after the player asks for it. Why should the judge assume the player is committing a GRV? As for the missed trigger with the Ring, the video covered everything relavent.

[@bk1ll]

I'm Still not convinced that Bart actually cheated, and if feels like you assumed too much when explaining the results. I don't agree that people who cheat should ever be allowed to play in pro tour events, but it feels like you said "once a cheater, always a cheater' and brushed him aside, while completely giving Simon the benefit of the doubt.

[@Barraind.Faylestar]

Its even weirder if the stuff he's done to make him a "known cheater" (I havent kept up with this shit since I played competitively many many many years ago) is shit like this. I'd hate to be labeled a cheater because once, my table judge at a feature match said something was fine and an hour later someone else said it wasn't fine. And then once I forgot a torture rack trigger in the last round of Swiss in what may be the dumbest grand prix into a prerelease I've ever played in (the goal was for the finals to end in time for the prerelease to start) where torture rack was irrelevant and the game was won or lost on the draw phase we were shortcutting to. Land meant 3x capsize on his bridges and swing for lethal, non land meant opponent would win on his turn. Judge decided that a game loss was more appropriate instead, because why listen to the players at your table? Twice makes it a pattern right?!

[@bk1ll]

@@Barraind.Faylestar a pattern can't be a pattern until you can eliminate the chances of randomness. 2 points on a grid can show a line, but whether that line is relevant to the whole picture can't be fully understood until you get more than the two points.

[@turgid4391]

yeah i couldnt agree more. i feel the goyf situation was accidental, even the judge missed it by handing him the role token. and i feel simon cheated several times in under a minute and everyone just brushed it off. it is also quite possible he did the endurance shuffle to distract javier so it would be more likely he would forget the protection and sneak the suncleanser in. cant really say either way given that we arent privy to the thoughts of the players. but youre absoletly right that it isnt fair to condemn one player and pardon another in these two similar situations.

[@NathanLipetz]

@@Barraind.Faylestar He was caught cheating on camera 6 years ago and banned for it. For about 5 years, he denied that being cheating, despite it being extremely obvious. When he qualified for Worlds (iirc), a ton of people called him out again, and he eventually admitted to cheating that 1 time. But it’s well known he’s been caught cheating in other events in Europe and disqualified, except not on camera

[@stetsoncrobison]

I think everyone's missing the part where the judges they said 'after the interview' they determined it was intentional. Maybe he fessed up to it when they asked him about it.

[@KoshoShinogi]

Simon Nielson making the top 8 in 6 of his last 7 major tournaments and only narrowly missing out in the one he didn't is quite an impressive run. Reminds me of another happy-go-lucky pro player who enjoyed lots of success before being removed from the Hall of Fame and banned for cheating, Yuuya Watanabe. Now, having lots of success is by no means proof of foul play, but it should at least subject that player to a bit more careful scrutiny. It just isn't likely that skill alone is enough to overcome both the randomness inherent to the game and other players' skill level on a sustained basis. Simon Nielson isn't above cheating just because he's a likeable guy. In the case of the One Ring, we have evidence that he was aware of the One Ring's trigger but played the Suncleanser anyway to see if he could get away with it. If Javier doesn't notice it, he gains an advantage. If Javier does notice, nothing happens to Simon, the judges just instruct him to make a legal play. In other words, there was no risk to Simon trying to make an illegal play here. By the letter of the law he didn't cheat, because tracking triggers is the responsibility of the player who controls them. However, he DID appear to knowingly make an illegal game action for advantage, which is part of the criteria for cheating, so the question is, which rule takes precedent over the other? I feel this missed trigger rule needs to be reevaluated, particularly with regard to bringing it in line with its digital formats, where missing triggers is impossible. For Simon or any other player to be able to take advantage of that because it's the opponent's responsibility to notice illegal plays is the equivalent of moving a pinned bishop to checkmate your opponent in chess. A legal game state should be preserved at all times.

[@Andreasws24]

No the rules are logical. YOU have to remember YOUR triggers. In this case you is a pro player! Missed triggers happen in mtg, and it makes sense that the player who's trigger it is, is held accountable. Sure the noble thing from Simon would be not to test his awareness of the one ring trigger, but ultimately you have to remember your own triggers. It's the same with Chalice. Chalice counters stuff only if you announce the trigger.

[@cp911s]

If you intentionally gain an advantage knowing your action is not legal, its cheating. the fact he is aware he is unable to attack shows his awareness of the protection, thus he would also be aware Javier was not a legal target. remember these are "pros" and are held to the "highest standard".

[@ogolthorp]

Yeahs Simon’s run is kind of insane. It would not surprise me at all if he ends up being discovered as a cheater.

[@Mrsierramist1]

5 of the last 6 and a lot of players have been on amazing runs...many of them from team handshake and CFB. I think Javier was top 10 in last 5. Seth and Sam are killing it. Nathan had a crazy year not long ago. I don't remember this many players being this consistent in decades. Usually one top 8 a year is impressive. With that being said, I don't think Simon was cheating against his friend on purpose in the top 8 on camera, but who knows.

[@OMGclueless]

There absolutely was a risk to Simon's play. If Javier did notice, then the judge would rewind to the time Simon made the illegal choice, which was when he was putting the Suncleanser's triggered ability onto the stack. He wouldn't get to take back his Suncleanser. It would remain on the board, his targeted sideboard hate card forced to be a vanilla 1/4 (actually, with a downside, as Simon would have to choose the other mode and the only legal targets are his own creatures). As to your latter point, where you say "he DID appear to knowingly make an illegal game action", I would disagree with this. Missing a beneficial trigger carries no infraction. Targeting an opponent who missed a trigger is not illegal. So in fact Simon tried to make a legal play, and making legal plays is not cheating.

[@wesleymitchell2460]

I think following rules without keeping the spirit of the rules in mind is silly.

[@Dragracingduleist]

Even if it technically wasnt cheating. Id bet my house he knew that he the other guy had protection and was knowingly trying to push the limit (simiular to a chalice check). I assume he was dead to right and that "soft cheat" was his only or most reasonable path to victory.... idk simon, i hear he is really nice but ive also herd hes kinda crappy to play vs and he apparently angle shoots, and if thats the case i wouldnt put it past him esp when you consider his run. Magic has a large enough RNG componet that its a bit of a red flag (to me) that he has top-8ed so many PT's basically in a row, the law of averages suggest you would just run bad off the top of your deck or have the opponet have the nuts enough times over those roughly 100 matches that you would miss out more than 1x...

[@dennismonk9559]

angle shooting is not cheating though, in any sport. It is perhaps a bit shady, depending on the sport. I do agree that with as much RNG a consistent top 8 is very likely angle shooting. But opponents can prevent this - Javier just needs to pay more attention.

[@bencheevers6693]

@@dennismonk9559 You're right but the other guy has a point, pros aren't the only people can play magic at a competitive level and play their decks properly, if you wanted to analogize to chess it would be like a 2700 playing a 2500, now the super gm is going to win every time but not when randomness removes his queen and even sometimes his knight as well. That's what magic is in variance, throughout the competitive history of magic, it was just so so many cheaters that were the faces of the PT and they were in the top 8 every time, that's just not possible given the game's mechanics even with theoretically perfect play.

[@ericm4658]

@@dennismonk9559 Angle shooting CAN be cheating? All cheating is angle shooting but not all angle shooting is cheating. Playing out of turn as an obvious example is angle shooting.

[@dennismonk9559]

@@ericm4658 I never thought of cheating as a type of angle shooting but I guess that makes sense.

[@Tacklepig]

I don't actually agree with the missed trigger part. That is to say, of course that is how the rules work, but they shouldn't. Casting Suncleanser there under the assumption the opponent missed their trigger is just a dick move. As btw would be not calling out the trigger until it becomes relevant (which I would even consider a misrepresentation of the gamestate by not declaring your trigger when it happens). I think the rules really need to be changed to be less "gotcha-y" and more about actual sportsmanlike conduct, aka playing the game properly rather than tricking your opponent into a violation.

[@WisemanxSmash]

I think calling out possible triggers is great at a casual level but at the highest level of competition each player needs to be aware of how their cards interact with their opponents cards. I can't imagine at the finals of the pro tour someone being obligated to say "and just in case you aren't aware, this is what the ring does". Is it a bit scummy to play a card with the hope that your opponent doesn't realize the target isn't valid, it sure is but your opponent should be aware that they aren't a valid target and cause your spell to fizzle/need to be redirected. They aren't sitting around a kitchen table here, they're playing for thousands of dollars.

[@meekrab9027]

Well the flip side of this scenario is, if Javier remembers the Ring trigger, Simon would've been forced to remove the +1/+1 counters from one of his creatures since his creature was already in play.

[@mattwickesberg7624]

This is a layer of competitive play that I love! It embraces the intellectual part of magic and makes paper magic feel different to online magic. Personally I don't engage in rule lawer bending though, my brain can't compute that fast

[@wellfed8705]

Hard disagree. Knowing the rules better than your opponent is a valuable skill at the Professional REL. Players should be cognizant of their own board state, know how their cards work, and be rewarded for having good knowledge of the rules. Rules enforcement and knowledge are one of the few things that actually separates Professional play from Kitchen Table Magic.

[@lexist7]

This is where playing a bit slower than you think you should goes a long way. Where I’m from cheaters and assholes and toxic players abound. Gotta hold your ground.

[@parfner666]

Fr and people will try to rush you and be rude about it. Just ignore them

[@bayerigi8245]

​@parfner666 But there's a different kind of cheating where a control player wins game one and then wastes time. I've had to tell players that we're running out of time and that could cost me a tournament.

[@ilyafoskin]

That's true. I remember back in the 90s there was a pro player who would heckle his opponents in matches telling them to hurry up, hoping that the pressure would make them misplay and then on his turns he would make a flurry of fast motions to confuse them. I think he was eventually found to have been cheating in worse ways and left the game but taking it slow is always what a cheater doesn't want you to do

[@Taromisaki666]

3:38 If every pro knows this, then why didn't anyone else at the table notice it immediately? Especially Javier, who would've gained an advantage if he did.

[@jakehr3]

Because it isn't his card and he's assuming his opponent is playing with his own cards correctly.

[@pascalsimioli6777]

@jakehr3 then the statement "every pro knows this" is not value anymore. Which in turn means even the guy with the goyf may have simply made a mistake. Basic logic, really.

[@jakehr3]

@@pascalsimioli6777 the issue is that every pro knows about tarmogoyf's interaction because it relies on all graveyards. If I try and bolt a tarmo with no instants in either graveyard, then I'm checking to make sure that there is only 1 other card type in both graveyards before committing to the play. The new goyf only cares about its owner's graveyard. So they are the one who is thinking "if I play a new card type, I'll get out of bolt range" Even beyond that though, they did an investigation afterwards. That investigation involves interviewing both players, reviewing past grvs in the same tournament, etc. Just merely gaining an advantage from a misplay is not enough to DQ someone for cheating, you have to have known you were doing so. So in all likelihood, they interviewed both players, and the one players answers were suspicious or inconsistent and he had other grvs of a similar nature in prior rounds or tournaments. That second criteria of the player knowing they were taking advantage of a mistake is what turns a normal grv warning/game loss into a cheating DQ.

[@Racnive]

At a professional tournament, you are expected to know how your deck works. The interaction between casting an instant (especially *that one*), the power/toughness change, and otherwise lethal damage is extremely relevant to the deck. Playing it at a competitive level involves abusing that interaction which makes it so resilient to damage. He very conveniently made a highly beneficial "mistake" about his own deck.

[@Raithian1994]

I feel like the "they are friends" arguement doesn't actually prove anything about whether it was intentional. For the other guy, all we need to assume is that they are pro players and they ahould know whay their own cards do in order to judge it as intentional. Well, Endurance is one of the most played cards in Modern, there should be absolutely no excise why a pro would think it shuffles. The no advantage part? Javier was looking for a supreme verdict that whole game. By shuffling a bunch of dead cards into the deck, you have now given yourself an advantage in reducing (even slightly) those odds. Was he cheating? I'm not a mind reader, I can't tell. But every reaaon given as to why the other guy was cheating applies here.

[@Racnive]

My argument is that the way Javier handled his deck after the Endurance appeared very similar to presenting his deck for a cut. Many players instinctively shuffle their opponents deck while thinking about something else partly to ensure they're not cheating. It's not about reading Simon's mind. It's about how likely it would be to happen by accident for any given professional player in that situation. And that feels reasonably likely to me. I'm no pro, but I'd *easily* make that mistake if I was preoccupied with something and it looked like my opponent was presenting for a cut. If I was in Simon's place I'd say... 30% chance?

[@gustavoramirezjr7320]

Lol, he did cheat, shuffling his deck was advantageous to him since Javier's out was finding supreme verdict, this was an open deck list Pro Tour btw. So 1 he broke a rule & 2 he gained advantage from it. A Dude that consistently tops events and pulls shit like this at a high level event is most likely a cheater, to think otherwise is rather naive.

[@SenpuuNoMa1]

I think it's highly suspicious to attempt to target Javier with the suncleanser. Simon acknowledged the trigger of the one ring by not attacking, indicating that he was aware of the effect. He then attempted to target Javier with suncleanser, but if you're aware of the one ring's effect, Javier would be an illegal target as a result of protection. Trying to target something you know is an illegal target, in the hopes that your opponent misses it, should be an intentional game rule violation, ergo cheating. I also believe that Javier taps his one ring with his finger to indicate the trigger right after he played it, but then forgot about it when the suncleanser targeted him. I think at the very least it's unsportsmanlike, but i also believe that Simon attempted to take illegal game actions and hope his opponent missed it, which should be considered cheating.

[@seandun7083]

Even if you know about an opponent's missed trigger, you are still explicitly allowed to play as though it is missed. It is entirely on a trigger's controller to remember it. From IPG section 2.1: "A player who makes a play that may or may not be legal depending on whether an opponent’s uncommunicated trigger has been remembered has not committed an infraction; their play either succeeds, confirming that the trigger has been missed, or is rewound"

[@SenpuuNoMa1]

@@seandun7083 I know that's how it is ruled at competitive currently, but I'm advocating against it, because I think you shouldn't be able to miss triggers in the first place, let alone exploit your opponent for missing them.

[@GoodWeatherDev]

@@seandun7083 He didn't play as if it were missed. He played as if it were communicated, up to the point that he played suncleanser.

[@seandun7083]

@@GoodWeatherDev it was a play that may or may not have been legal depending on wether the trigger was missed. If the trigger hasn't yet been communicated, then it is perfectly legal to attempt to make that play (IPG 2.1 which was quoted in my above comment). The reason he didn't attack was presumably because if his opponent remembered the trigger before damage, the attack wouldn't be reversed whereas if his opponent remembered when targeted with Suncleanser, the worst that would happen is being forced to target a creature instead.

[@exposfan94movies]

​@@seandun7083And that has the 3 elements that qualify as cheating!

[@antran0696]

how can you say the first one was intentional but the second isn't?

[@attackoncardboard]

Because the second one didn't break any rules.

[@moaf2padventures757]

@@attackoncardboard lol thats a weird response to me. the 'legality' of the second play is what imo made it FAR more likely the second one was done intentionally.

[@GoodWeatherDev]

@@attackoncardboard It's a question of when the endurance was played on the previous turn. If it was played end of turn and Javier bottomed, the ring trigger is missed right there and Simon would have attacked the next turn. He didn't, and although it's hard to hear in the audio from the clip, I believe the ring protection trigger was communicated and Simon played endurance in response. If he played endurance in response to the trigger, the trigger has been communicated and it is the responsibility of the judges to enforce the communicated trigger, even on subsequent turns. The casters did a terrible job and yapping about completely irrelevant plays, so it's very hard to hear but you can hear the protection trigger communicated.

[@attackoncardboard]

@@moaf2padventures757 If you have Chalice of the Void in play with 1 counter and I cast Ponder to "Chalice check" you, if you let the spell resolve because you forgot your trigger, I didn't cheat. However if you Lightning Bolt my 2/3 'Gofy and I cast Not Dead Yet on it and put a wicked role token on it, I have cheated.

[@moaf2padventures757]

@@attackoncardboard right so it seems far more likely that the second play was intentional since it isnt cheating

[@georganatoly6646]

these examples demonstrate why I'll never play a non-casual 'in person' game of magic, whether or not any one cheated is immaterial, the real issue is that any time a game enters an invalid state, regardless of how/why/intention, or retroactively found to have reached an invalid state at some point those games must be nulled and no winners or losers can be declared in such games, otherwise the rules are completely undermined and you're effectively playing a fundamentally different game than everyone else at the competition which obviously should not permissible, it's wild to me that even at the highest levels of competition in magic these tournaments can be decided by invalid games -- also the judges need to have much more responsibility for monitoring and enforcing player move legality similar to like a ref in the NBA versus the more passive role they play, but I also think it's crazy they don't have regulation 'gear' like mtg provided mechanical card shufflers and the like, and in general removing the option for a player's influence for any effect that uses the word random or is implicitly random by using mechanical/digital/3rd party (not a player) mtg provided randomization tools

[@zentec010]

It took me a second to realize what bart did I just thought he said hay man I cast this it will die and come back with counter on it like you would with a friend at the table, no time to skip steps in a competition.

[@TheBizzerker]

Yeah, based on how believable it is as a mistake, I definitely wouldn't confidently say that it was cheating. Guy has a 2/3; it gets targeted for 3 damage (which would destroy it); since it's going to be lost if he doesn't do anything, he plays a spell that brings it back pumped up if does die. For almost any other creature, the obvious result is that it dies, then comes back with the role. To me, missing the fact that the card whose effect is to bring it back after death, actually prevents it from dying in the first place by altering its stats based on merely having been cast, is insanely easy to miss. I think saying that the damage from the role token is what's responsible for the loss is also a huge reach. That one point of damage is why he died at that exact moment, but even without it, he would've been down to 1 life, down by 15, with Sheoldred on the board. He's not exactly within striking distance at that point. The extra +1/+1 from the role probably contributed to being in that position, but the lone point of damage there is literally the smallest contribution to lethal damage that's even possible while still dealing damage. That said, the one thing that does make it questionable, IMO, is how simple the state of the game was at the time. Two card types in a graveyard comprised of two cards isn't exactly hard to keep track of. Presumably, he was keeping track immediately after this play of the fact that he had three types in his graveyard to put Nethergoyf at 3/4, and then an additional +1/+1 from the role token. At that point, I'd think maybe it would click that having that 3/4 without factoring in the role would mean that Goyf would've survived the 3 damage based on just the fact that casting the instant put him at high enough power. However, even then I can easily seem him just not properly recognizing what should have happened based on timings of things.

[@osiris201]

@@TheBizzerker Especially when the literal judge is handing you the token that you shouldn't have gotten, it's definitely a rough call to make but with Bart's history I can't blame them. When you've cheated before you have to deal with the consequence that you'll be held to a higher standard for the rest of your career.

[@LeapingRat]

@@TheBizzerker that was my take too. i think its ridiculous to say that he was absolutely cheating on that play. its just as much an honest mistake as the last example but because bart is a known cheater, people will assume any mistake is a cheat.

[@evaunitr]

So for that last part... the Endurance Cheat. Maybe have players adhere to the classic board setup (deck in lower right corner, grave yard to the right of it) so that players dont put their deck in the battlefield (and close to their opponent, looking like an offer)?

[@Barraind.Faylestar]

Judge at the table: No, you're good, here's the status token. Judge after the round following that round: Oh yeah, you're dq'd for the thing I told you was okay. Its never on the player when the Judge says it's good.

[@KalaxusMageslayer]

Unless that player is a repeat cheating offender with multiple confirmed cheats and a laundry list of accusations that went unproven. Then it's the judges fault that the cursed cheater got victimized by poetic justice. But yeah either way definitely not the players fault, and even the assumption he knew shouldn't get the token was extremely presumptive. Even if he thought originally that it shouldn't, the judge handing him the token might've made him assume he was wrong and the judge was correct. Confusing destroy creature for just enough damage to kill a creature in the moment happens. Knowing how the triggers play on your card in the interview later also doesn't mean he knows every card that can hit those triggers in those ways either. Major assumption of guilt first in the investigation it looks like in scenario 1, while the giggling cheater in 2 gets heaps of presumptive innocence. While the tape shows player 1 poker face inconclusive but no vis cheating based on body language, and scen 2 is almost telegraphing he's cheating. But neither game should of been cheat checked post match and both match judges should be recycled back to education or reduce their certification down a tier for a season and reevaluate later.

[@yawg691]

At some point do they say "Javier please pay some more attention" lol

[@attackoncardboard]

😂

[@LucianDevine]

Easy to say when we aren't in the top 8 of a pro tour, lol.

[@jimbo103189]

This is all on the judges not Javier. Literally their job and its just sad when even the announce team caught the suncleanser mistake 🤦‍♂️

[@coreylando6608]

@@jimbo103189 it’s not the judge’s responsibility to point out Javier’s missed triggers. From the Infraction Procedure Guide, “Judges do not intervene in a missed trigger situation unless they intend to issue a Warning or have reason to suspect that the controller is intentionally missing their triggered abilities.” It is on Javier and Javier alone to remember that he has protection. Now with the goyf situation, that’s definitely on the judge. No arguments there.

[@mugthemagpie3001]

​​​@@coreylando6608Then what the hell judges are for in the first place? It should be their job to point out mistakes (like we do on local levels) and especially when there is like THREE of them at every table during pro events, especially when it would give an unfair advantage. It's like soccer judges ignored the lack of defenders while running for the goal, counted the goal and only announced and punished the entire team like the week after the match. Also, if doing something according to the rules but in malice is also on the verge of legality when it comes to normal law (in a lot of cases INTENTION is very important not the letter of cited law), then why don't we apply it to something like actual events when you roll very serious money? This is why I never had intention to do any professional Magic, because often there is absolutely nothing professional about it and staff at times seems to have reaction span of a toddler.

[@jackiespaceman]

“It definitely feels like a small mistake after several days of grueling Magic” Yeah so why not give the same benefit to Bart? It definitely looked like an actual mistake caused by the unnecessarily fast pace of pro tour play What really needs to happen is that play in these events needs to be slowed down and thoroughly checked at every step. Otherwise they should be using Arena so this can’t happen

[@OMGclueless]

The critical distinction here is that Bart made an error that benefited him, while Simon made no errors. Javier was the one who missed the trigger. In the first scenario Bart was the one who made the mistake and was the one who benefited, so he gets a GRV and, because the judges determined it was intentional, also gets disqualified for cheating. In the second scenario Simon didn't make any mistakes, he just targeted Javier who didn't announce his One Ring trigger at the appropriate time.

[@jtyree0226]

@@OMGclueless​​⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠both Suncleanser and shuffling Javier’s deck gave Simon advantage. He literally one first game off former and for latter made it less likely for Javier to draw supreme verdict as the out. Those are 2 errors whether you like it or not

[@thinktankdonahue]

The difference between effectively ignoring the ring trigger and effectively misapplying a death trigger is practically indistinguishable when trying to ascertain intent. This video is fucking ridiculous, he's probably friends with Simon. The magic rules are written to properly assign responsibility with game state compliance and to create bright line rules but gimme a fucking break, mental gymnastics

[@OMGclueless]

@@thinktankdonahue Bart is misapplying his own trigger. Simon is ignoring Javier's trigger. The difference is not "practically indistinguishable": the latter has a rule specifically allowing it, the former does not.

[@thinktankdonahue]

@@OMGclueless " when trying to ascertain intent" try to keep up

[@MRLollipop44]

simon in fact did gain an advantage by shuffling after endurance resolved. javier was digging for supreme verdict because suncleanse shut down wrath of the skies. and you can clearly see simon doing atleast one shuffle and he is not able to undo it. also i think "chalice checking" your opponent is unsportsmanlike behavior. sure he is allowed to do that but who are you to do that to your friend and teammate...

[@Frommerman]

Chalice checking is 100% legitimate. You're making the legal play of casting your spell. If your opponent doesn't remember how their cards work, that's on them.

[@SenpuuNoMa1]

@@Frommerman but there's a difference in that casting spells under chalice is a legal game action, it just sucks as a player to have your spell countered. But trying to target something with protection from anything is a game rule violation since it's not a legal target, which is the key difference in this situation.

[@turgid4391]

@@Frommerman sure, according to the current rules its legal. but the current rules suck so bad that a significant amount of the community believes the most recent pro tour champion to be a cheater. not sure the rules are really doing so well if this is the state of the top level of competitive magic. the game is not being decided by better plays, or even the luck of the draw. its being decided by cards NOT doing what is printed on them and thats a very serious problem if you have even a shred of competitive integrity in your body

[@Frommerman]

@@turgid4391 Well yeah. As it stands, remembering you have a Chalice in play is a skill the game cultivates if you're going to put Chalice into your deck. I'd say the problem is Chalice is an abysmally designed card which should've said "Players can't cast spells with mana value X." But they didn't do that, and that leaves us with no easy solution. Either you force players to remind their opponents what their own cards do, or you do this and force the people who chose to put Chalice in their deck to remember they did that. The problem is Chalice sucks in a way which forces awful gameplay. Not that the tournament rules are working around that fact as best they can.

[@OMGclueless]

@@SenpuuNoMa1 The important thing you're missing is that Simon has no way of knowing whether Javier actually has Protection from Everything. If Javier didn't announce anything, then it's possible that he missed the trigger. If he missed the trigger then he doesn't have protection, and then Simon's play is fully legal. Simon is trying to make a _legal_ play ergo not a GRV.

[@throwaway7425]

i disagree with you on the ring trigger. I believe the endurance was cast in response to the trigger/cast, but the trigger was acknowledged by one of the two players. Protection is static, and not a trigger

[@attackoncardboard]

I made an error there. The Endurance was cast in response to the Ring. And yes, the protection ability is a triggered ability because of the reasons I mentioned in the video.

[@miltonfriedman69]

@@attackoncardboardit triggers when it enters. But by the time it is Simon’s turn it doesn’t seem like a triggered ability anymore

[@E_D___]

​@@miltonfriedman69the rules mention "the first time the trigger ability should have an effect" -> this is the first time protection from everything should have an effect

[@skylar5257]

Protection is a trigger, the card states “when the one ring enters the battlefield, if you cast it, you gain protection from everything until your next turn.” An etb trigger is a trigger lol. The protection is a hand casted etb trigger.

[@Izelor]

WotC should pay more judges to help with these events. I don't know why on 2024 we still have instances of broken rules and potential cheating. The deck should never be touched by the opponent, only by a judge. Also, players shouldn't be responsible for their triggers. Judges should. It's like playing football and having the players ask for a free kick every time a foul is made, because the referee isn't responsible for this.

[@blackr4inbow]

The pace of play would drastically lower, it would feel like the judges are playing the match. Players are expected to have some responsibilities in their own games. If they aren't sure, they always have the option to call a judge. There is such a small subset of players who would cheat who also have the skills to get to those levels of competition, that i don't think its fair to implement sweeping net negative rules for everyone here.

[@Izelor]

@@blackr4inbow well, it's the highest level of competition and you still see cheaters and mistakes that affect the outcome of the match. Besides, I wouldn't call this kind of gameplay entertaining. Maybe an experienced player can appreciate it but the casual Magic player who attempts to watch this show will be bored pretty quickly anyway.

[@blackr4inbow]

@@Izelor Cheating and mistakes that affect outcomes are part of competition in general. wherever there is potential gain there is incentive for cheating. that's not MTG exclusive or even more prominent than in other competitions. As for entertainment value? thats a different conversation. I firmly believe that coverage of Pro Tours are net positive on the outlook of the game and it's perception outside of the core community, and that alone justifies it but we could debate that forever.

[@Scharrer23]

Lol .This is like saying professional chess players should move the pieces themselves. Judges are there to enforce rules, Catch mistakes and so on, not to play for the players. And in the end, there just humans who also can miss something. World cup sports referees who are paid a lot more make mistakes. If you want a mistake/cheat free tournament, then you have to make players play magic online, and even there technical issues could come up

[@Izelor]

@@Scharrer23 professional chess players don't move the pieces of the other player when they aren't looking. Your analogy is as idiotic as yourself.

[@hanschristopherson8056]

It seems entirely possible that both simon and javier forgot that protection doesn’t let you target because the main thing the one ring does is prevent you from taking damage which simon clearly remembered

[@petrie911]

It also makes any auras attached to you fall off. Wonder how often missing that interaction comes up.

[@helderboymh]

Simon might have been aware but he didn't break a rule. It's not on him to remind his opponent of a most trigger. I know it seems different then a trigger wich affect the game right away, like not reminding you opponent of a missed etb trigger that makes a token right away. But it essentially the same. Had he announced that the trigger happened when it entered the battlefield but then forgot it when he got targted, it might have been different. Idk you'd have to ask a judge, I assume that would be different.

[@aboudkar]

It is absolutely on Simon if trigger was pronounced. And from the video Javier announced it and pointed to one ring. after that it is in a game state, and it is cheating to try to target in that game state intentionally unlike chalice checks for instant (which would create new trigger)

[@ethanlarge3572]

@@helderboymhit would have absolutely been a game rule violation from Simon if Javier had at any point prior demonstrated awareness of the trigger.

[@3rdtimesacharm84]

@@ethanlarge3572 there is audio of them talking about the protection trigger , so your saying it was a game rule violation?

[@tylermfdurden]

Hard disagree on the ruling against Bart. The opponent missed the interaction, the JUDGE missed the interaction... but they're certain that Bart was aware of the interaction? I don't think you can call it intentional if everyone missed a complicated interaction especially when what happened in game was very natural. I would even go as far as saying the Suncleanser play is more egregious since he visibly giggled after the interaction. He was visibly showing awareness of having cheated.

[@attackoncardboard]

Which rule did Simon break during the Suncleanser play?

[@enricus2479]

Simon did not cheat. Cheating means breaking an established rule which he didn't do.

[@Joshimuz]

I was at Magiccon Amsterdam and saw the stage in person, the amount of people stood around those tables is nuts for no one to notice any of these things happening. Magic be hard. Also, great breakdown!

[@attackoncardboard]

Interesting insight. I can only comment on what we see through the camera. I'd love to go to one of these events, hopefully I'll make it happen next year 😁

[@useridkilla3698]

I feel like if the Not Dead After All is a DQ, then the One Ring situation should be treated the same. My argument is that they were both game play actions that were illegal to make, so they should be handled the same. Not Dead After All is played with Grief so often, and Grief dies every time, getting the role token. The player that targeted Javier with the enchantment while he was protected from everything, then did not attack. The The One Ring game feels more like cheating than the first one. Both situations were "missed" by both players and the judge. Just because one looks like it was made by a player to see his benefits grow, and the other looks like a trigger check on your opponent to see if they will remember, doesn't feel like they should be handled different. The first guy messed up and ended up winning, so he was DQ'd. The second guy messed up and ended up winning, but he wasn't DQ'd. I feel like both games should have had a rewind, and the judges should have been more aware of the game state so as these things don't happen. Make a mistake, judge should be there to say "No, that's a warning, you only get one, rewind the game actions." I do t play high-level tornerment, so I don't know the procedure, I'm just basing off the games I saw and how I feel they should have been held. When an illegal game action is made and not caught, the rest of that game is an illegal action. So many things will now be handled differently then if the actions were made correctly. Javier only lost one energy but then could not gain any for rest of that game, how would that game have played out if this mistake was not made? How would the Nethergoyf game have played out if he didn't cast Not Dead After All, or cast it but didn't get the rile token? We will never know because they didn't rewind the turns, so the rest of the game should never have happened. Way I see this, The One Ring game Javier should have got the win, because dude targeted him under protection but didn't attack, becausehe was under protection. If that's just a mistake after 2 days of magic. Why is the other not the same? How long has it been since "Dont't bolt the Goyf"? These guys are programed to "let the elementals die and re-enter for value." How come this muscle memory action was not looked at as a mistake after 2 days of magic? Golf player made mistake on his things and opponent didn't catch it, the other player trigger check his opponent and got away with it. Either way both games continued with wrong plays so I feel like both games should be erased of there standing and made to be a tie.

[@TheBedazzeler]

In spirit you might be correct, but in factuality there is a big difference. Javier doesn't 'have' protection in the way the Goyf 'is' a 3/4. Unless Javier has made clear the ring has granted that ability Simon is within his rights to test the water that his opponent has in fact missed this trigger. Goyf on the other hand just is a 3/4 with 3 damage on it by virtue of the game state, it going to the graveyard is not ever allowed to occur. At the top level missing a beneficial trigger is seen as a mistake you made not a violation of the game state. In the second case the judge was also very much correct to not say anything, because that would have beeen closer to giving advice than correcting a game violation.

[@alicetheaxolotl]

That is a flawed argument, as only the first scenario is an illegal game action. We have no proof judges missed the 2nd situation. Judges are explicitly told NOT to intervene if a trigger is missed, unless they intend to issue a penalty (for example, if Javier "forgot" to lose 2 life to the One Ring, then he would receive a warning). We don't even have proof that Simon missed the trigger, because it is not his responsibility to remember Javier's trigger. It is solely Javier's responsibility to remember his trigger, and forgetting it is just seen as you making a mistake that potentially costs you the game. Even if we give Bart the benefit of the doubt and say he did not intend to break the rules, it was still at least a Games Rule Violation. Simon, the person who did win, did not mess up, only Javier did. As stated before, Simon is not responsible to remember Javier's trigger. Even if we assume Simon DID know about the protection, he still did not break any rules. In fact, IPG 2.1 states Javier is the one that broke the rules by missing his trigger, that rule just doesn't have a penalty. The judge should have caught that the Goyf did not die, and if they had caught it, Bart may have gotten let off with just a warning. This is incredibly unfortunate, but judges are only human and don't often make these mistakes. You only hear of the one time these mistakes happen, not the hundreds where they did intervene. You are correct that, if an illegal game action is not caught, that game should be treated as illegal. That is why the results for Round 13 were reversed when Bart got DQ'd. Why should Javier have won? You say that he was illegally targeted while he had protection, but The Magic Tournament Rules explicitly state that if you miss a trigger, then that trigger never happened. If the One Ring's enter the battlefield trigger never happened, what is giving Javier protection?

[@oniaisu8560]

@@alicetheaxolotl If I'm seeing the match correctly, didn't he cast endurance in response to the protection trigger? Wasn't that the first instance of it affecting the game state? After that it's just a static ability. There's no counter trigger to test for.

[@skylar5257]

In a way that sounds right but there’s one simple explanation that follows magic ruling. The one ring protection trigger is a trigger for Javier’s card and not Simon’s card and the Goyf was a trigger from Brian’s own cards. It’s up to you to remember your trigger not your opponents and up to you to know how your deck works. They didn’t choose for you to play your deck, you chose the deck hence you take into understanding that it’s your job to remember these things. Brian broke the rules by allowing his own cards to work in a way they aren’t allowed to work in and when he did he won the game because of that and when looking back at that it looks like malicious cheating. Simon whether he knew or not wasn’t the one who gave protection to Javier, Javier gave it to himself and it’s his cards trigger. By that point it’s his job to remember that, and if he didn’t it’s a missed trigger meaning it’s his fault this happened. The judges could’ve stopped it but then you’re expecting them to do the jobs of the players by reminding the players their own cards do stuff and that’s not their job. It’s up to you as a player to pick a deck, know how it’s cards works and then play as such and if you miss a trigger… then you need to pay more attention.

[@jjjj8644]

If Javier wins another tournament, his card should be called "Javier the luckless champion"

[@civi5sc2]

Did javier announce the ring trigger on etb? If the trigger was announced, it was not missed. From my understanding simons play would then be grv even if javier forgot about the protection later, and the game could be backed up if it was later discovered

[@GoodWeatherDev]

This is exactly what happened. Simon's fetch and endurance was in response to the ring's protection trigger, not the ring itself. You can see Javier draw before endurance is played. Even if it both players shortcutting, the judges should have enforced the proper stack resolution.

[@BlazinTre]

This channel is a godsend. You explain this game and it's rules so well.

[@attackoncardboard]

Thanks for taking the time and letting me know! 😊 Really glad to hear you're enjoying the content! :😃

[@NeverShoutScoty]

I agree. Other channels just state what’s going on and I have no clue what’s happening. Having the explanation makes it 100% better so thank you!

[@A-ii5dp]

3:00 it seems like this issue could have been resolved if the game was simply replicated in a machine which accounts for all the rules and the discrepancy would have been detected immediatly.

[@A-ii5dp]

@Moblinmobus Bro's really on an MTG rules video and calling people cringe lol

[@LucasCastro-oc8tt]

The shuffling problem was advantageous for Simon. Javier had drawn a ton of cards and he needed the sweeper. He drew more than half his deck. At that point, shuffling a bunch of cards that weren't the hit he needed neither were supposed to be in the way of it, decreases a lot the chance to find the necessary card. At that moment, even before i'd noticed that it was a mistake, while watching it live, i thought that that was really bad for Javier. Not saying it wasn't an honest mistake, but there was definitly only one person whose odds of winning increased after that

[@enricus2479]

Javier maybe shouldn't position his fucking deck on his opponents field then, the universal language for "please shuffle my deck". If anything it was Javier trying to shark his opponent into a game loss.

[@eliacomandu2548]

I dont know if you see the clip where someone played Dryad Arbor in the creature spot and then a land and passed the turn. Was that also something to look at?

[@aguilefo]

look at his videos, he knows the rules, he for sure has seen that video like a lot

[@attackoncardboard]

I breifly mention that clip in my "Can you lie?" video as they literally changed the rules of the game thanks to the Dyrad Arbor incident!

[@Fleshpenance]

@@attackoncardboard is that the same clip? Isn't the rule change one related to Dryad Arbor being in the land spot? Sounds like OP is talking about two lands being played in a turn

[@attackoncardboard]

@@Fleshpenance Oh whoops. I think you're right. I'll have to look up this two land thing.

[@nharviala]

​@@FleshpenanceSounds like something to... Explore further.

[@TheRealVFox]

5:40 Did Simon cast the first endurance in response to the one ring? The video says EOT but he already has protection?

[@attackoncardboard]

Ah, that's probably a mistake on my part. After reviewing the match again, it looks like Simon casts Endurance in response to the Ring.

[@C42ST3N]

He could also cast it in response to the protection trigger on the stack after the one ring resolves.

[@jackcarlson5227]

@@C42ST3NBut that would have been acknowledgement by both players of the trigger, meaning the Suncleanser play could not claim a missed trigger from the turn prior.

[@C42ST3N]

@@jackcarlson5227 that is correct.

[@xXOblivionXx1]

Wait but javier said no and did he not just keep shuffling? It took the judge to intervene? Im confused 😅

[@robert8984]

Well, that just shows most people actually dont play REL Pro. Targeting people after The One Ring resolves is pretty much a standard play. The most sophisticated variation is: Oppo plays The One Ring. At the end of oppos turn you target oppo with random bullshit. If it resolves you go into your turn and attack oppo - when he says he has protection you say "No, you missed the The One Ring trigger on cast, as is evident by me resolving a targeted ability EOT.". Thats pretty much as normal as "Chalice checking" at this point.

[@jaywinner328]

Couldn't people just announce their One Ring trigger when it enters the battlefield? At that point trying to target them would be an illegal move by the opponent.

[@attackoncardboard]

They could. But there is no advantage to do so.

[@robert8984]

@@jaywinner328 Thats infact what you are supposed to do.

[@ianlittlefield8448]

​@attackoncardboard This is not true. If you have announced the trigger and it has been acknowledged there is no longer ambiguity to your opponent attempting to "chalice check".

[@attackoncardboard]

@@ianlittlefield8448 I literally quoted the official rules that states what a missed trigger is. Failure to acknowledge the trigger by the time it impacts the game. You need to take this up with the rules committee.

[@EionBlue]

Sorry, but I call bullshit, if your argument to why a player is not cheating is "well you didn't notice me cheating", then no, you did cheat, you're just being a scumbag, otherwise, Bart Van Etten also didn't cheat. Can't have your cake and eat it too, and to make this clear, I'm not talking about the rules themselves, I'm talking about the process of handling them, if Van Etten can be retroactively DQ'ed from play, so too can Nielsen, especially when it's so apparent that it was intentional and that it was an advantage very pivotal to him winning.

[@jaydonlund]

Getting back into magic after 10 years and your channel is fantastic. I'm very excited to see what you do in the future

[@attackoncardboard]

Thanks for the feedback, it means a lot 😊 As long as Wizards continues to make cards, there will always be rules and interactions to explain. I enjoy these deep dives into the rules of the game, but they take me forever to edit 😅 This was meant to go up last Wednesday 😅

[@PrinceofPain1776]

11:27 you are logically inconsistent here. In the first situation you use the basis that the player is experienced to make the case that he was aware of what he was doing. In the third situation, Simon, clearly also an experienced player, is interpreted not to be aware of what he is doing when he breaks the rules. Gutter garbage logic, here.

[@mnm1273]

His argument is that the first situation is standard and the second situation isn't. In the first situation the natural response would have been correct, in the second shuffling the deck is a natural response but was wrong.

[@PrinceofPain1776]

@@mnm1273 define natural response with respect to each instance

[@mnm1273]

@@PrinceofPain1776 As the video says. The first scenario is one that appears often enough you'd know not to put on a token. In the second scenario, it looks like you're being presented the deck. So the natural response is to shuffle.

[@PrinceofPain1776]

@@mnm1273 so you think the judge was in on it, and Javier is an idiotic noob?

[@mnm1273]

@@PrinceofPain1776 Both were most likely not looking out for cheating. The judge will just have been going through the motions, most likely assuming that such a good player will be making the right call. It's definitely a failure on his part, but that's the only real explanation because you can't actually think the judge didn't know the rule. As proven by Javier's mistake in the next round, he clearly just assumes that the other player is following the rules. Checking for rule breaking from an opponent at top levels is usually a waste of energy, because it's really quite rare (which is why a video was made about it)

[@beleagueredbeluga5228]

Its crazy that missed trigger arent accounted for at the supposed highest and most super duper professionalest levels of Magic. This whole situation is just Bart getting dq'd because we dont actually know that he knew he was cheating intentionally, but known cheater, and Simon not getting dq'd because we dont actually know that he knew he was cheating intentionally, but we just dont know ok?

[@blackr4inbow]

You might not know this, for any major infraction there's an investigation going on, players and bystanders are interviewed to determine motive, knowledge and prior history and overall what happened. When it comes to cheating I believe those investigations are double checked by the head judge of the event. There's more to it than is shown.

[@mugthemagpie3001]

Yeah this boggles my mind and to me not reacting during a missed trigger that would put the player in a massive advantage or/and would led into breaking the rules is the most absurd rule ever. Why? Compare it to a soccer match, scoring the goal despite lack of defenders while running for the goal and shooting behind their line. Not reacting to a missed trigger that led into rule breaking? Then why do we have judges for? THREE of them at every table

[@alicetheaxolotl]

@@mugthemagpie3001 Let's say, theoretically, I have lethal on board. I could swing and reduce my opponent to 0 life. They have no nonland permanents and no cards in hand. There is no reasonable explanation for me to intentionally not swing. If I forget to swing, and then my opponent topdecks a Bolt that kills me, do you think the judges should have intervened? Judges are not there to coach you how to play your own deck. At the professional level, that is how missed triggers are treated. If I make a mistake and forget I have protection, then that is on me, not the judges. The trigger is treated as if it never happened. So if the One Ring trigger never happened, Javier does not have protection. If Javier does not have protection, what rule was broken?

[@qlcrane8019]

They looked at previous rounds and interviewed players from those matches too and they had reasonable doubt that there was ill intentions in the plays

[@GeusGames]

It is never cheating to cast Suncleanser like Simon did, either Javier remembers his trigger, in witch case Suncleanser has to pick the other ability, or he forgets the trigger, and we get what happened in the game. Judges are not there to have you play your deck well, that's on you. Ps: this is even explained in this very video!

[@ericbowers5968]

In the one ring example, if you miss the first trigger of an ability that has no set amount of times it can be triggered, can you reinstate it's effect by noting it's trigger at a later incident or is the effect essentially nullified for the rest of the game? I assume the answer would be the same if it has a limit to the times it can be triggered, as when it is required to sacrifice the permanent after or if it can only trigger once per turn.

[@aradan3913]

In the endurance situation, I'm not sure "he didnt know" after the missed trigger from earlier. This just happens to have happened in consecutive do or die games, and them being friends didnt impact respecting the missed trigger. There's a big difference in putting cards at the bottom or shuffling the deck after, if any of those cards are out of tempo at that point of the game, it would be easy to tell if it was an advantage or not (Tune, dressdown, spell snare and a fetchland I think?). If it looks like he presented the deck for shuffling and you ilegally shuffle, there's no difference with the first example, you know your card isnt supposed to do that. I dont have money in this games or anything, I didnt even watch the games before this, but there's no way you have all this instances happen, with an example of cheating in a previous round, and oyu dont pull the trigger, most likely for optics.

[@NovaCyn]

I'm surprised Simon didn't also attack Javier. If it really was a missed trigger then by the time suncleanser's ability has resolved he's free to attack as well as it's now too late for Javier to acknowledge the trigger. I'm not sure if he did or didn't acknowledge it before the suncleanser (it's very difficult to hear what the players are saying from the coverage feed) but it seemed like Simon is aware of the protection and even believes it to be there after the suncleanser play, which it wouldn't be if this was actually a oh you forgot to announce the trigger moment. I feel the coverage team sums it up pretty well what likely happened is that because suncleanser is a targeted ability which isn't that common for this type of hate bears, and the players are playing very fast and lose it was just missed that the one ring's protection actually matters. But that does make it a mistake from Simon (again assuming Javier did announce the trigger when the ring resolved) if that is how it went down. I will add in the second clip from the match you hear how Javier says "I have protection" as the one ring resolves. Acknowledging the trigger immediately instead of relying on the last possible moment to acknowledge it, and I find it unlikely that Javier would have waited until the first time it's relevant in other cases even though it's permitted to wait up until the first time it has a visible effect, it's jut very natural especially to these guys to acknowledge the trigger as early as possible. I'm not saying Simon cheated I'm saying I'm not convinced. It would be nice to have a recording of the game without coverage talking over to refer to but alas.

[@Billymanaco]

As someone who primarily plays Yugioh, I find this scenario (and in fact the entire set of rules relating to missed triggers in MTG) to be very strange/alien. In YGO, there is no such thing as a “missed trigger”; or rather, you are not allowed to miss mandatory triggers, ever. And yes, your opponent is in fact required to remind you of your mandatory triggers, even beneficial ones, if you forget them. Both players are considered responsible for maintaining the integrity of the gamestate, and if errors are noticed after they occur, a judge needs to be called and will usually attempt to rewind the game to the last valid gamestate. My understanding is that in these cases, *both* players get a warning. This process obviously introduces a number of new problems that do not exist in the MTG world where you are allowed to miss beneficial mandatory triggers. But in YGO “chalice checking” is just considered to be an illegal action, and if you did it knowingly, hoping your opponent forgot their trigger, that would immediately be considered cheating. I find it interesting to consider the benefits and drawbacks of each system. I prefer the YGO rules here personally, but perhaps I am just biased.

[@attackoncardboard]

Interesting insight. I always enjoy hearing about other TCG rules and these sorts of situations.

[@wjeffcunningham]

This is how it used to be in MTG and I think it was much better. former mtg pro player

[@enricus2479]

The Yu-Gi-Oh system is asinine, might as well cut out the players entirely and just let AI robots play your decks instead. You'll get disqualify and banned from tournaments because you flashed the wrong token in your deck box. Asking how many summons the opponent is at and then admitting post game you don't run nib will probably get you banned too. It's a fucking joke of a game.

[@mandriva4280]

Oh and yes Simon clearly cheated. You even pointed out the reason it is why this is clear.But I guess it is cool to find loopholes in rules for when cheating is fine. Sportsmanship is dead.

[@attackoncardboard]

How did he cheat? What rule did he break?

[@Intangible360]

No mention of Jean-Emmanuel DePraz playing 2 lands in a turn?

[@attackoncardboard]

I'm absolutely gutted I missed this one. Only found out about it due to comments on this video AND it included Javier!!

[@E_D___]

​@@attackoncardboardJavier got cheated on (or suspect for it) in 3 different games and still got second place? Never saw a man so good in playing magic while being asleep before

[@shawnkayian8241]

your comment about the shuffle being a wash is so off tho because javier was digging like crazy for a verdict and then all the cards he put on the bottom got shuffled back in so it wayy hurts javier in this case.

[@attackoncardboard]

What's the % change?

[@carlpederson2701]

@@attackoncardboard is there a specific percentile that needs to be met before a “competitive advantage” is obtained and therefore qualifies as cheating? if not i don’t think the answer to that question is relevant.

[@Stoothis]

I personally hate the missed trigger thing. Both players should be expected to maintain the gamestate. Missed triggers should only refer to people missing "may" abilities or if you forget a "scry during your upkeep effect" you can both assume that you left it on top. I just don't think we should reward people because their opponent forgot a mandatory trigger and they didn't mention it over people who just make sure the game is played out the way it is supposed to.

[@skylar5257]

It’s up to you and only you to remember your cards do things, not your opponents. You decided to play with the cards not your opponents, when you play with a deck it’s the understanding YOU know how the deck works not your opponents. Your opponents didn’t choose your deck for you.

[@CharcoalBlasterdog]

I think you should get rewarded for your opponent misplaying (forgrtting their triggers)

[@hunterforce30]

Why is it that you claim Bart cheated by “knowing what his own cards do” and not doing so perfectly, while Simon doing the same thing with endurance from the last example “isn’t cheating”? He plays endurance, he should know it doesn’t shuffle, but you claim he didn’t cheat when he at least attempted to shuffle Javier’s deck. I also disagree with you when you say Simon didn’t cheat by using suncleanser on Javier. The one ring has a triggered ability that creates a static effect of protection. Simon OBVIOUSLY knew this and proceeded to take an illegal game action. I’m not saying he should’ve DQ’d like Bart over either of this, but there definitely should’ve been some penalties. Magic is a game that should be fun for everyone playing it, professionally or casually. But if you have to worry about everyone cheating and not getting penalized for it, even in the PRO TOUR, then I’m worried that this game won’t be fun for much longer.

[@TheLord_of_ForbiddenDecks]

I still feel Simon should have done the honourable thing and let his teammate advance once he realized the mistake in game 4...maybe he didn't actually cheat but he certainly gained an advantage and it would bother me to have won that way

[@attackoncardboard]

If Javier had mentioned his One Ring trigger, he would have very likely won that game. But having said that, Javier made the mistake at the end of the day, so it was his game to lose.

[@MrPiotrV]

you're assuming it was intentional or that they even realised it at the time. we don't know either of those things

[@TheLord_of_ForbiddenDecks]

@@MrPiotrV I am presuming, based on his reaction afterwards regarding combat, that he knew what he was doing. I could be wrong and would be happy to be so...but it seems to me that he knew the trigger existed so that makes his actions suspect from my perspective

[@jmcomparan]

@@TheLord_of_ForbiddenDecks It isn't an opponent's responsibility to coach your opponent how to correctly play the game, especially at a competitive level. If he knew what he was doing, that just demonstrates his skill as a player even more so, and his awareness of rules interactions. He likely did it intentionally imo, and is a better player for it. Missed triggers can be placed on the stack up to the first time they would cause an effect on the game state, so Javier had a second chance to place his one ring trigger on the stack after getting targeted by suncleanser. He misplayed twice, whereas casting the suncleanser was likely a calculated risk on whether or not he remembered the trigger.

[@kylejoly577]

Well said​@@jmcomparan

[@frazzgnarth]

@7:03 Not cheating related, but actually a misplay on Simon's part. Being that the trigger was missed, and can be demonstrated at this point as being missed, there was no reason for him not to attack with his creatures. If Simon attacked and Javier pointed out the trigger at this time, the trigger has ALREADY been missed because of the Suncleanser trigger and it would be Simon's decision whether the One Ring trigger should be added to the stack at the time of pointing it out. The attack is essentially free here, and would really feel like BMing your opponent.

[@nXmaniac]

Very nice video breaking down the situations. I must disagree with the case for Bart's DQ presented in this video. The reasoning for Bart's intention to cheat seems flawed to me. You claim that every pro player knows this interaction, especially a veteran like Bart. This is certainly true. However, it is still a subtle interaction that can be missed in the middle of a complicated, high-stakes game on camera. Indeed, Javier misses it too, even though pointing it out would be to his advantage. The judge on the side misses it as well. I am not disputing the ruling itself. It is possible that the judges' investigation brought forward other facts not presented in this video. I am also not so deeply familiar with tournament rules. So all I am saying is that I disagree with the argument in this video. Lastly, I must question whether Bart's history of cheating influenced this decision. It is clear that you and many others despise cheaters but let us ask ourselves: Would this infraction have been a DQ if the roles were reversed and Javier put the Wicked Role token on his goyf? Is there anything in the rules that states past (caught) cheaters are more likely to have an intention to cheat? Should the rules apply differently to them?

[@printingproxies]

so for the part at 8:20 , does that apply for rhystic study? Like I just have to ask ONCE when it affect the game? If so, Im about to sneaky draw all my commander games lol

[@attackoncardboard]

For Rhystic Study, it impacts the game everytime an opponent casts a spell. If you let the spell resolves without announcing it, you've missed the trigger. Ownus is on you, not your opponents.

[@ericcarlin687]

This is why I only play Online/Arena save myself loads of money and don’t have to deal with pro cheaters

[@attackoncardboard]

Fair enough. This isnt too common of an occurance, and if it happens at your LGS, the community should be swift enough to kick them to the curb (or at least call a judge over every time they play).

[@MacHenk007]

Agree. Waaaay back rules were rules. Then 'intent' popped up ... 'His intention was to do xyz'. Well, maybe, but he didn't ... so it didnt happen. Still the intent clause made it so, everything could be backed up till the gamestate was clear enough. And then off course the correct thing happend. Sigh 🤮

[@turgid4391]

@@attackoncardboard sadly im not so sure its an uncommon occurance. ive been to every lgs in my state and there are always cheaters even at fnm level. most lgs dont have a judge above L1 if they have one at all. they just have who they feel is the most knowledgeable player come to clear up strange interactions, but in terms of throwing people out. that happens far far less than you might think.

[@cosmicbbq5963]

Just ai support lol

[@TulipQ]

The missed trigger thing always feels screwy. I feel like WotC should errata beneficial triggers to all be may triggers, since the rules actually do care about whether a missed trigger is "usually beneficial".

[@LakeVermilionDreams]

When an article asks a question in the headline without answering it, the answer is "No." Otherwise, if the author had definitive proof of the affirmative, the author would make an assertion, not ask a question!

[@attackoncardboard]

Questions get people curious which gets people to click on the video. However, unlike regular clickbait, I get straight to the point and deliver what I promise as well as (hopefully) providing a HQ video.

[@jacksonlittle5993]

One of the biggest benefits of digital magic, my opponents unable to take illegal action. IRL I constantly catch people cheating no matter what card game it is. It's nice on digital to just not have to police everyone the entire time so I can actually relax for once.

[@unforseenconsequense]

I'm sure there will be a point when the recorded matches will be played on mtg arena at the same time, like how chess records games into the computer and there will be a warning when someone cheats

[@skylar5257]

They do that already, but Arena doesn’t have all the cards for modern, pioneer which are the two other PT formats, it only has standard

[@sunriseoath]

@@skylar5257 How do they do this? Any source? At a glance it seems unlikely since it would only work for Standard and Draft, and also would require there be a special software that can draw specific cards from each player's library in the Arena version.

[@8Smoker8]

1) "aware they're doing so" that's a HUGE stretch. It's a very missable interaction, BS ruling with the info we have. I wonder about the interview. 3) Simon is tired after 2 days but you can't miss a bolt-goyf interaction with a judge sitting next to you?

[@attackoncardboard]

It's a missable interaction at LGSs sure, it shouldn't be at the second biggest tournament in MTG. I'd imagine the interviews cleared a lot of things up, but we don't have access to those chats.

[@8Smoker8]

@@attackoncardboard no man, without the interview we don't nearly have enough for a DQ. It could have been a warning in game, sure. But DQ? That's just because of his history unless he really messed up the interview. And it's very missable at tournament level, let's not pretend it couldn't happen to the best players. His oppo AND the judge missed it too.

[@naiustheyetti]

@@8Smoker8 the reason that it is a DQ is because the individual won through a illegal game state. if this was caught during the match it would just be a warning, or more if previously given a warning, but because the match was already decided and the play was illegal through simons action then it results in a DQ. Javier should pay more attention but simon should also represent a legal game state, especially at that level of play.

[@8Smoker8]

@@naiustheyetti The reason is he's getting (rightfully) zero tolerance concerning intent. I guess in MTG you can really base rulings on a player's history. Had they ruled there was no intent, there would have been no cheating and no DQ. On the other hand I'm pretty sure Simon has been cheating as well. There were more reports about dubious plays from him.

[@blackr4inbow]

Typically, intent and precedents would be discussed during the investigation. The investigations are also usually run by the head judge in cases of DQs. Not to mention, previous bans are not available to judges, wizards doesn't provide a list of current and previous suspended players, they honestly probably didn't know until the investigation.

[@jonw8697]

How did the one ring even get exiled by the haywire mite considering the protection from everything? or does the protection only get granted to the player

[@attackoncardboard]

"YOU gain protection from everything until your next turn." - Permanents are still fair game.

[@egoish6762]

We've all been close the the endurance shuffle cock up

[@attackoncardboard]

I think if Javier didn't put his deck in the centre of the table, this easily wouldn't have happened.

[@LucianDevine]

@@attackoncardboard Yeah, the fact that his deck naturally sits sideways in the red zone instead of upright in it's "proper" place definitely makes it an easy mistake to make.

[@andrelanca2700]

Actually, i believe javier should have presented to Nielsen to shuffle cut his graveyard before putting it on the bottom of the library. That mistake was on him not doing so

[@pajander]

People keep yapping about the Ring even though that's a very clear cut case when you look at the rules and the real problem here is the Endurance shuffle. It irreversibly broke the game state and gave an advantage to Simon (shuffled five dead cards into Javier's deck). Who knows if it was intentional or not, but even if you rule it not intentional the whole game is meaningless after that point, so surely the game should be restarted?

[@egoish6762]

@@pajander don't the the rules allow for a flat out restart due to an error like that, i've seen someone given a game loss for breaking a similar rule several times in one tourny without malice though

[@AutumnReel4444]

11:48, claiming that it gives no advantage is misguided at best. Agree that it wasn't cheating, since it definitely read as unintentional, but deeming that it gives no advantage is wrong.

[@Dungeoofpain]

It's so easy to miss ring trigger when the ring is no longer in play.

[@kyo1860]

But is easy to remember when you don't attack because of the protection

[@paupanades9957]

@@kyo1860 Fr to me the most glaring and possible malicious intent from all the 3 . Like, bro, he did not attack because of the ring, wtf even is that ppl discussing about the goyf interaction, what is more obvious than the simon case?

[@attackoncardboard]

@paupanades9957 what rule did Simon break? Javier missed his trigger and therefore didn't have protection.

[@paupanades9957]

@@attackoncardboard Rules are set stipulations the fact that it didnt fit that rule breaking slot doesnt mean it wasn't malicious and absolutely against good competitive spirit

[@kyo1860]

I'm not saying he cheated because he didn't. Many people in the comments said that Javier didn't miss the trigger initially, so it's open to debate. The point is, is awful to do that specially against a fellow collegue.

[@matthewbryant2972]

I don't know... I had judges consider DQ'ing me for not pointing out missed "whenever" triggers that were benefiting me, at a GP in like 2018 or 2019... I was informed, after multiple judges took me aside, that if it's not a may trigger, I have to maintain proper gamestate even if it's my opponents trigger. Intentionally ignoring my opponents triggers is a warning that can lead to DQ, in the recent past. There's a female pro who was DQ'd from a Pro Tour for not reminding their opponent of like stab wound triggers or something. She ended up working for wotc after words too.

[@jasonmacaro4052]

The judge who handed him the token should not be allowed to be a judge if this mistake is bad enough to disqualify bart. The judge helped create an incorrect board state by handing him the token.

[@Nawxder]

If you fire judges every time they make a mistake, pretty soon you won't have any judges at events.

[@E_D___]

I don't think he should get fired - but I found it not fair saying "the judge made a mistake, but it should be expected from the player to not make this mistake. Therefore he cheated intentionally and should get kicked"

[@Nawxder]

@@E_D___ Pretty sure it's cause he has a history of cheating, not the first time.

[@CharcoalBlasterdog]

It wasnt a judge.

[@gaivscaesar]

The freaking judge handed him the Wicked Role, how the hell can he be held accountable for that. If I were in his position I would be absolutely fuming

[@popthekid1941]

why did the judge hand the player the token role that made him get dqed

[@OMGclueless]

Because he was casting a card that named that token. Possibly he even asked for it explicitly It's not the judge's responsibility to maintain game state, it's the players. Most people don't have a judge watching everything they do.

[@popthekid1941]

@@OMGclueless 🤣

[@warp9988]

In this case Bart did NOT deserve the DQ unless there was evidence for intent. "He ought to know better" or "He cheated in 2020" are not intent. 1. That Bart had been found guilty of cheating previously does not mean he was cheating here. 2. His misplay is egregious on first look, but what evidence is there it was intentional? Is it not possible that he is cheating but that there is no evidence that he knowingly played the wicked role when it should not have been played? The reasonable read on this one is that he thought it died and came back with a wicked role. The fact that it should not have died, and thus should not have got the wicked role was simply missed by the (a) player controlling it, (b) the opponent, and the (c) judges at the table during the match. The judge hands him a wicked role token. The opponent does not say "Wait your creature didn't die, it doesn't get the wicked role". Just like your second case, this is a mistake, a misplay, a miscalculation based on implicit misinformation. Not a game loss, not a DQ. A warning. Bad judge, no cookies. 3. The judges saw this interaction during the game. They did not catch it.

[@attackoncardboard]

What was said during the interview then for him to receive a DQ? Thanks to that outcome, we can surmise that intent was found.

[@christopherealy8025]

I swear, pro magic is built to just curb stomp on people. There should be no reason that rules enforcement doesn't fall on the judges more. They should have a more interactive position, especially in the top 8 of the pro tour. If you go back through magic history, you'll find that a bunch of these rules were set up the way they were to punish players for not having absolutely massive real-time comprehension, which was never how the game is intended to be played. The rules should not be a tool to force your opponent to lose games outside of the game state, but pro players use it that way. It's why "move to combat" used to mean "skip beginning of combat and move to declare attackers." The reason the one ring was cheating, and it is cheating, is because you are allowed to ignore the game state in pro magic if your opponent is not aware you are ignoring it. They aren't playing magic anymore. This isn't competitive magic. These players should be ashamed of themselves. They don't deserve the recognition.

[@sy-py]

Mad because you can't remember your triggers, are you?

[@christopherealy8025]

@@sy-py Oh, so you support cheating. Got it.

[@sy-py]

@@christopherealy8025 It is literally not cheating. Read the rules

[@christopherealy8025]

@sy-py "I get to ignore what you're card does, because you forgot for a moment." Yeah, sounds like you got outplayed, but want to sneak out a win still. The cards should do what they should do. Not reminding your opponent of their triggers should be failure to maintain board state. It's funny how that applies to literally everything except triggered abilities.

[@sy-py]

@@christopherealy8025 Skill issue.

[@selimb33]

Props to that judge giving the wicked token role tho, you'd have to be really attentive to make that mistake while monitoring the game

[@antoniojesusperezpolo6186]

. I am a certified judge, but I am currently retired. I’d like to know what the likely outcome would have been (regarding judge decisions to manage the situation) if Simon had not been so deceptively cautious and had indeed attacked with their creatures after resolving Suncleanser’s enter-the-battlefield ability. I am quite certain that this would have highlighted Javier’s awareness of the trigger, even if he missed the interaction with the ability that just resolved. However, given a previous opportunity to demonstrate that awareness (when Javier visually removed his energy counters), the judge would likely rule that the current agreeable game state completely ignores the resolution of the One Ring trigger, correct?

[@sy-py]

That is correct. By "allowing" Suncleanser to target himself, Javier missed the trigger and the game proceeds as if it never resolved

[@skylar5257]

Yes, the rules changed long ago after Brian Kibler didn’t remind his opponent of an etb trigger and the game went on like no trigger was supposed to happen leading to Brian Kibler winning the PT. How it works now is it is only up to the player who plays the card to remember triggers and if you allow something to happen like that target, the game goes on and acts as if it never happened since it’s up to you to know how your cards work and their existence. If I play Chalice of the Void for 1 and an opponent plays Brainstorm or Ponder and I let it resolve then no judge has to call it out and the game says “nope that wasn’t countered at all” unless I tell them it’s countered.

[@Renigade68]

Hmm, not too familiar with MTG specific rulings on this sort of thing, but for the last example with Endurance, if the cards being bottomdecked need to be placed there in a random order, wouldn't their opponent need to shuffle that section of the deck before it's placed underneath the rest of it? That would be the consistent way to do it, so that would mean both players made a mistake, but again don't know if Wizards rules this sort of thing differently than normal deck shuffling.

[@GreenwhiteblueGWU]

The judges had to be whooped after all of those grueling Nadu matches.. ughh.. no thank you.. but I do appreciate your analysis.

[@attackoncardboard]

The judge who invented the Nadu 0/1/2 equipment token is currently having his statues built 😂

[@ZeroSaturn-jd9uy]

Wouldn't goyf hit the grave first. If the stack is phage targets, goyf then goyf is at the bottom then phage so when not dead was played it becomes goyf not dead than phage but not dead only applies a static which phage still resolves and the stack goes to grave as goyf not dead and phage simultaneously. Would goyfs effect still activate on the instant or am i wrong on how stacks work?

[@mewmeister8650]

The stack resolves as follows: Not Dead is cast and goes to the graveyard, then Phage trigger happens. Goyf's variable toughness doesn't use the stack, so after Not Dead resolves it's immediately a 3/4.

[@exposfan94movies]

The life total distraction involving Haywire Mite needs much more focus in this video. It is a clear attempt to lie and distract in order to target and make an illegal play as both players are responsible for upholding the game state. Neilson is a cheater.

[@brylythhighlights4335]

If "every pro player knows not to bolt the 2/3 goyf" than we'd expect that anyone else present would have caught this on the spot, especially the judge that handed over the role token? Despite the player's history, I'd insist that this was reasonably ambiguous, but changed the result of the game. Give them a game loss for it, not a DQ.

[@helderboymh]

It seems like an honest mistake to non pro players but it's really unlikely that it wasn't intentional. Any player who has played this deck for a pro Tour knows this. They have likely played the deck more then 50 times before the tournament. They will create a habit of constantly being aware what types are in the graveyard and how big the goyf is. It's like one of the basic skills you have to learn to play the deck. It's just extremely unlikely that he wasn't aware that this, casting an instant to make goyf bigger in response to removal is probably something that he has done a dozen times in testing. On the other hand a cheater has used up their metahophorical "we're gonna assume good intentions" card it's the "price" you pay as an (ex)cheater, you have to play if more clean and are punished harder for honest mistakes. On top of that Imagine if he did make it to the top 8 despite this play. People would be outraged Javier included. They can't afford that, reflects terrible on the tournament and on wotc.

[@ArborusVitae]

Phlage can bolt the 2/3 goyf though right? You can choose the order of the triggers to have the lightning helix effect resolve before the sac so the 3 damage is lethal right?

[@sebastienbernaud6359]

Actually, I have a question about the missed trigger of the ring. Once Javier let the suncleanser etb resolve, it's a missed trigger, no problem with that. But how does it work if Simon attacks with endurance after that and Javier point the ring ? The trigger was already missed and it's not the first time the game state will be affected.

[@attackoncardboard]

100% Simon could have attacked without consequence. Protection has been missed, Javier will take damage.

[@sugulll]

From the Endurance incident. Isn't mandatory to present the randomized graveyard to your opponent before puting it on the bottom? If that's the case, Simon just took what he thinks was Javier's GY and gave it a shuffle as competitive players usually do, then the blame is on Javier for trying to stack the bottom part of his deck. What do you think? 🤔

[@oelarnes]

Agreed, if he had presented his graveyard correctly, Simon would not have had the impulse to pick up the deck.

[@dmv99]

doesn't matter if Simon didn't tell Javier, Javier is still an illegal target. The ring's ability resolved. Simon chose an illegal target willingly and he cheated. He also didn't attack which means that he's acknowledging the ability of the one ring....he cheated and the "missing triggers" rule does NOT apply here.

[@attackoncardboard]

How is Javier an illegal target if he missed his trigger? If he missed his trigger, he doesn't have protection.

[@edoardoteani3681]

​@@attackoncardboardSimon Is well aware of the game state and shows that by not attacking..

[@attackoncardboard]

@@edoardoteani3681 Ok? My point still stands. If Javier didn't announce his protection trigger before it would first impact the game, it is considered missed.

[@skylar5257]

He never stated his trigger and he allowed the target to happen. Rules weren’t broken except by Javier for being unable to maintain a correct board state.

[@golDroger88]

Double standards. If one is aware they're doing something wrong then the other is as well, both are experienced players. Is the maker of this video related to the second guy in any way?

[@attackoncardboard]

I spoke about 3 incidents in this video and literally broke down why each of them was or wasnt cheating. Which one is the double standard? The cheating one? The missed trigger one? Or the shuffling of the library one?

[@golDroger88]

@@attackoncardboard The first guy should know the interaction of his own cards, being a professional, experienced player. This was the presented argument to assume he knew what he was doing. Why does this not apply to the second guy, considering he is also a professional, experienced player?

[@Farodsbro]

Once Simon targets Javier with Suncleanser and removes Javier's energy counters, the ring trigger is considered missed and Simon could have attacked and damaged Javier, right?

[@attackoncardboard]

He could have. I wonder if it's because he didn't know what the consequences would be (there would be none).

[@JLH111176]

sounds to me that Simon had incentive to try the suncleanser if opponent forgets immune to bad, for opponent I win, if opponent does notice after I cast game rewind and I get to play the card different I may as well try no down side

[@attackoncardboard]

Reminds me of "Chalice Checking". If you have Chalice of the Void in play with 1 counter, and I cast Ponder to see if you're paying attention, if you let it resolve, that's your mistake. And in a competitive setting, I'm taking advantage of that.

[@edoardosalvai2759]

If javier remembers simon lost his best sideboard card in the matchup because the rewind leave the suncleanser on the battlefield because the problem is the etb effect so i don t think simon did it intentionally whith a so great risk

[@JLH111176]

@@edoardosalvai2759 I play this card to remove all the energy counters so that I don't lose the game, as long as opponent forgets the trigger so that it shouldn't work, probably lose the game otherwise. At that point what difference does it make that I lose best sideboard card if I'm going to lose game anyways ? What is the risk

[@edoardosalvai2759]

@@JLH111176 i don t remember perfectly the situation but i don t think simon has clear indicators that he loses next turn. If i was in that situation and i know javier has protection i would play suncleanser next turn when he does not have protection and lock him out of energy whitout risking the play

[@jaden536]

This is what's known as angle shooting, and in my opinion it's still cheating and you won't change my mind, Simon is a cheating POS and his PT winnings should be revoked

[@AzurielMist]

6/7 top 8 finishes in large events kinda speaks for itself, with variance of bad draws etc.

[@shryque]

The fact that a video like this exists tells you how unprofessional Magic Tournaments are.

[@attackoncardboard]

Pretty sure the last PT went pretty smoothly besides the incorrect Judge ruling in Top 8 around Battles (but that didnt end up impacting anything)

[@Frommerman]

Wait what battle was in the top 8?

[@attackoncardboard]

@@Frommerman Yuta was playing Invasion of Gobakhan. The error happens in the UW Control VS Borros aggro match.

[@DaWyssTV]

If there were no mistakes by the judges where does this make any sense? Its more likely that the community did wrong here pointing fingers or not 🤔

[@riverfilms4548]

A thing that I will never understand is, how it is possible to miss effects on cards. I mean it's not possible to miss triggers online, How is it possible in the same game but offline? It doesn't make sense. In football we talk about using AI to make sure we have purely neutral judgements while in MTG you could literally just ignore what's written on a card. That is BS and as a MTG Player I would never be happy about a win where I won through an impossible play just because the opponent forgot something...

[@ericjohnson6105]

Only thing I can see about the endurance shuffle is while it could be presenting, that is where Javier has his deck placed anyway. Although I can see that it is usually an automatic reflex to want to shuffle anytime you see the opponent manipulate his deck. The other thing is that there actually is a beat in between where Javier actually starts to perform actions, and then it occurs.

[@superactivitylad]

I only started playing mtg a few months ago, and even i know about the nethergoyf thing where an instant (played in response to something that does just enough damage to kill it) will increase its toughness before damage is done to it if there wasnt already an instant in the graveyard before.

[@jiaan100]

Oh this isn't even the 'bolting a 2/3 goyf with no instant in the yard' state based actions thing

[@DemonBlanka]

imo the confusion (assuming it was a mistake) is probably not understanding that the creature needs to return with Not Dead After All to get the role and assuming the creature gets the role no matter what. Given that it's usually used on Grief's evoke trigger most players are just used to sticking the role on immediately, this is, in a way, an uncommon use for the card.

[@LucianDevine]

@@DemonBlanka Yup, but he gains some doubt, because he's supposed to know how his cards work.

[@DemonBlanka]

@@LucianDevine Yeah and obviously the past history and all. But I do think it is pretty conceivable that someone could mess up the interaction, given the context the card usually sees play.

[@AnonYmous-mc5zx]

There was a presumption of mens rea when there was none. He didn't cast some random instant to up the goyf's toughness, it was an instant spell which protects a creature from a kill shot. It makes sense that the presumed order of operations involved the Goyf dying and coming back.

[@Cocytus127]

The judge handing him the token makes him just as culpable. He should have caught the mistake.

[@tr0798]

How can this level of sloppiness for the judges be possible for "professional" magic. It seems like the speed at which they play the game has a factor in why it happens, it's like they're rushing through the game, it makes it much easier for cheating to go unnoticed and also for sleight of hand manipulation to thrive. Also, something I'm starting to notice is that cheating seems shockingly common place in competitive magic, and that many of the early and ongoing "champions" are accused of cheating at some point. Why would anyone want to compete in a game that has an extensive history of cheating tainting a large number of its winners and championships...

[@CodiTC]

Bart shouldn’t have been disqualified, looks like a normal play pattern and the toughness being 4 was missed. If you can say Simon’s plays were honest mistakes then you can say the same about Bart.

[@alicetheaxolotl]

I'm perfectly fine with assuming Simon was 100% malicious in his intent and knew that Javier missed his One Ring trigger. Even in this scenario where it was 100% intentional, Simon did not break any rules and should suffer no penalty. The rules explicitly state that if you miss a trigger, it didn't happen.

[@useridkilla3698]

The second guy found out Javier was missing triggers and knew the rules better. So he made an illegal play on purpose to check if Javier would remember his trigger, because if Javier misses it the other guy won't get penalized according to the rules. The Nadu players practiced, so they knew how to keep track of triggers and game state. That dude cheated and did it in a way that he could not get in trouble either way. Make play, Javier says protection from Ring, shit card revealed. Penalty or nothing, game has complete different outcome. Other guy, NDAA, target Goyf, instant in graveyard, toughness now 4, does not die, got to put role token, other player "that's not Grief, it didn't die, so not role." "Oh ya, my bad, rabbit you know, haven't played Goyf since mid 2000s😅." Game finishes completely different. They should have handled each game the same.

[@seandun7083]

The fact that the rules specifically say that playing into your opponent's missed trigger has no punishment is specifically to make it not cheating. From IPG second 2.1: "A player who makes a play that may or may not be legal depending on whether an opponent’s uncommunicated trigger has been remembered has not committed an infraction; their play either succeeds, confirming that the trigger has been missed, or is rewound"

[@GoodWeatherDev]

@@seandun7083 The trigger was communicated the turn the ring was played. It's not a missed trigger.

[@seandun7083]

@@GoodWeatherDev interesting. If that's the case then the rule I quoted won't apply. Most of the people I've seen talking about it (this video included) seem to be saying that it was a missed trigger, but since I haven't actually watched through the match, I'll have to defer judgement. If it was missed, the play was legal and not an infraction, but if it was acknowledged when it happened, then he has protection even if he later forgets.

[@enricus2479]

@@GoodWeatherDev Proof?

[@CuriousMouse1988]

newer magic cards, especially MH cards, are so much more complicated than the older ones. This surely makes remembering triggers, stack a lot harder as more muscle memory needs to be trained.

[@zackestin1368]

I mean, tarmogoyf is not a new card, and even endurance is several years old, the pro magic player definitely has some experience playing it

[@LucianDevine]

@@zackestin1368 The Endurance scenario is a bit more forgivable because of where his opponent lets his deck naturally rest, sideways in the red zone. If it was back where it normally goes, this mistake never would have happened.

[@zackestin1368]

@@LucianDevine im well aware thats the reason, im commenting on a comment about how it happened because MH cards are just so complicated this pro cant know endurance doesnt shuffle

[@JoseEstrada-g5q]

According to you, after how many hours of play it is allowed to break a rule without repercussions?

[@attackoncardboard]

And you're taking into the fact that one of these situation involves a single individual being malicious and the other is someone putting their deck in the position for presenting for a shuffle and their opponent obliging them?

[@ClavisRa]

Missing the trigger of the Nethergoyf getting bigger is functionally the same as missing the targeting of sun cleanser. Calling one cheating and the other not is absurd rules lawyering. Both players and the judges messing up is just a sad statement on the state of the game.

[@attackoncardboard]

One broke the rules, while the other literally didnt. Javier missing his One Ring trigger is not the same as Bart deciding his Gofy gets a wicked role token.

[@ClavisRa]

@@attackoncardboard They both took illegal games actions they each were aware was illegal. The difference is only a rules technicality. In spirit and in intent and desire to manipulate an unfair advantage, identical.

[@attackoncardboard]

@@ClavisRa and at a professional tournament, the rules are all that matters.

[@ClavisRa]

@@attackoncardboard except that's not all that matters. Integrity matters. Of the game. Of the player. Successfully "getting away with it" is no justification for wilfully cheating.

[@skylar5257]

That’s not how any of this works, the best way to explain this is the rules take into account that they’re YOUR cards and YOU’RE expected to know how they work, no one else is expected to know that. You choose the deck and the cards in it not your opponents. The Goyf trigger was on his own card, cards he chose to play and manipulated HIS OWN cards to work in a way they just can’t. The Suncleanser did what the card does so Simon didn’t break the rules by doing something it just can’t. The One Ring trigger wasn’t Simon’s card, it was Javier’s card hence it is up to him to remember the trigger. One broke the rules, the other one didn’t. It’s not against the rules to target someone if they have protection if the person forgets they have protection from their own card just like it isn’t against the rules for me to play Chalice for 0 and allow a Mishra’s Bauble to resolve if I forgot about my Chalice because it’s MY problem if I let that happen.

[@jjjj8644]

There should be one extra judge that watches the match through the screen so he can spot things the main judge may miss

[@Nawxder]

There's not enough judges to do this for every match, and they don't want to change feature matches to be too different from non-feature matches.