Plays that Forced Magic: the Gathering Rules Changes (MTG)

[@vhsquid]

That language barrier issue in the "combat" clip never fails to infuriate me when I see it. Ignoring the fact that he couldn't legally skip the phase as others have pointed out, it's pretty scummy to penalize anyone (let alone an ESL player) for not using flawless terminology. With the Needle example, at least the person named a legal card by mistake. The "declare attackers" step isn't called the "combat" step. However, the phase itself is called combat. So why would saying "combat" not start the combat phase from the first step? In a game as needlessly pedantic as Magic, you'd think weird oversights like that wouldn't happen at a pro tour event.

[@boonsaplenty3924]

Defenders of judges at the time are even worse because they're all so steeped in Magic tradition that they see no issue with enforcing arbitrary customs that are completely unsupported by even the official game and tournament rules at the time. To them, back then, "combat" meant "attackers" because they SAID it does, and arguing otherwise was useless because they'd already made up their minds to that effect.

[@Seldomheardabout]

I just liked how the guy who called him out said he cried between matches. Like crying makes it acceptable to be an actual villain.

[@jordibear]

Worth noting however, and it was not fully explained in this video, is that the play Cesar is trying to make IS an illegal play. What Cesar is attempting to do is go to beginning of combat step, and then with the welder trigger on the stack, crew the Heart of Kiran so he can buff it with the welder. This isn't possible, since the targets are declared as the Welder ability is put onto the stack, at which point Heart is NOT a creature, and therefore cannot be a valid target. Cesar would have had to crew his Heart BEFORE the beginning of the Beginning of Combat Step (Ie, when he has priority during the end of Main Phase 1), and then during the Beginning of Combat Step, the Welder trigger can now target Heart of Kiran. There is like 3 things going awry here, and only one of them could be unjust, and that is the judges counting it as a missed trigger and not just clarifying that Welder trigger can't target Heart of Kiran, and would therefore have to target one of the other legal targets it had.

[@correct_enough_to_call_you_out]

@@jordibear this is bs it's a totally legal play...

[@Furavara]

@@correct_enough_to_call_you_out No, what @jordibear said is right. If you have a trigger go on the stack, you need to declare the targets. You do not get priority before declaring targets, only after declaring targets. You get priority in each phase, one after the other. And a trigger stating "At the beginning of combat..." triggers in the beginning of combat step, before either player gets priority in that step. SO just as you can not activate an ability before a "At the beginning of your upkeep..." trigger goes on the stack, you can not go into any combat phase and then crew a vehicle and target it with an "At the beginning of combat..."-trigger. Whether he wanted to make that play is less clear to me, as I think he only says crew in the video, and crewing it is a legal play. If the intention was to crew and use the trigger on one of the two artifact creatures, everything is fine. If he crewed mainphase, went to combat and target Heart of Kiran, also fine. But crewing in the beginning of combat with the Welder trigger on the Heart of Kiran does not work.

[@TheNorwegianThunder]

The fact that a judge DQ'd a player for casting a match winning spell slightly wrong in the semi finals of a pro tour is still the craziest story from early magic I've ever heard

[@MTGGoldfish]

Yeah, the whole Pro Tour Riot thing is wild.

[@Dragiceoriginal]

To be fair, the player had received something like ten warnings for doing this throughout the tournament

[@honks_in_banana3864]

Yeah they definitely should have just ignored it as it doesn't really push the game into an illegal game state. But I will say the rule to tap before casting sort of is a good rule, as there are problem cards like sylvala, explorer returned that this rule would solve.

[@collinbeal]

@@honks_in_banana3864 it definitely isn't a good rule, as activating mana abilities is a special action

[@coreyg7364]

If there wasn't another card with the exact name the guy stated, the judge would have probably ruled differently. I'm with the judge here -The guy named the wrong card for Pithing Needle.

[@sebastianosimionato9538]

The hilarious part of Ceasar's story is that there isn't even the word "Combat" in the Declare Attackers Step, whereas there is in the "Beginning of COMBAT" step

[@HybridDestroyer]

This was a shit show to cover judge's mistake.

[@dungeonpastor]

Yeah, the judge was an idiot. And that opponent was being a jerk.

[@jm8153]

Bad sportsmanship on the other player too

[@DaysDX]

When I first heard about this I thought it was a card effect that sent him to combat and it was a weird interaction that sending to combat effects skip the beginning of combat. Like those were the actual rules of a card (inter)action. In this video it seems like it was literally just the phrasing of the player and that there weren't any actual rules these judges were citing. Where were they getting this idea from?

[@jdonvance]

About the #2 entry: 1) If Cesar had said "attackers", I could see that possibly being interpreted as "Let's move straight to the Declare Attackers step", but he said "go to Combat", which is the name of the PHASE. It's not a shortcut. 2) Cesar had a triggered ability that goes on the stack at the Beginning of Combat. While it is true that the rules as I understand them at the time allowed for triggers -- even mandatory ones -- to be skipped entirely if both players failed to remember to add them to the stack. Not only was this not true, but there is another rule that allows the game to be reversed to a previous state/step/phase AS LONG AS nothing has happened that could not be reversed. For example, if I draw a card too quickly, my (beneficial) upkeep triggers won't go off; I can't unsee the card I drew. If Cesar had actually declared some attackers, it would have been too late for his Beginning of Combat step trigger. Since Cesar clearly believed himself to be in the BoC step with his trigger on the stack, that's where the judge should have adjudicated the game state to be in and possibly issue a first-offense warning. To do otherwise would be to unfairly catch a player in a "Gotcha" trap. 3) But most importantly, the one thing I haven't heard anyone address is: What was Cesar SUPPOSED to have said to advance the game from his first Main Phase to the Beginning of Combat step without saying the word 'Combat'??

[@brianb.6356]

"Go to Beginning of Combat" would have been the correct phrasing, but I agree that it's overall bullshit.

[@TomGalonska]

1) The tournament rules allow for universal shortcuts, and "[go to] combat" was widely used (I have no earthly clue how Budde thought otherwise...) 2) While reversing the game state is a possible thing, it's not done everytime. Every possible situation and rules infriction has stepes associated with it. And the game doesn't get reversed for a missed trigger (although i agree with you, that this should've happened... but we don't make the policies). No matter where Cesar thought he was going, his Engineer trigger would've always been missed, because clearly the first thing he wanted to do in the "beginning of combat" phase was to crew the heart (he even wanted to target the heart with the Engineer's trigger), failing to declare a target with the Engineer's abillity (and that is the first thing you have to do!) 3) Something funny like "Go to the beginning of combat phase". And yes, this is ridiculous, that's why the rules got changed.

[@Nawxder]

@@brianb.6356 The judges actually say that any mention of the word "combat" goes to attackers, including "beginning of combat."

[@narex45635]

@@Nawxder Timestamp for posterity: 24:05 "you have to do that before *mentioning combat*"

[@damien4197]

"pass priority during my first main phase" Yes, this is at ridiculous as it sounds, and the judge should be permanently ashamed.

[@Tw0shedz08]

The fact that saying the word “combat” used to mean “I’d like to skip an entire step and go to the declare attackers step.” Is batshit insane

[@ErikvO]

It's a perfectly sensible meaning given that in 99.9% of cases that's exactly what you want to do when you're done with your main phase. The problem isn't the normal meaning being 'go to the declare attackers step,' the problem is enforcing a convention of language as if it's a rule in a case where there's clearly a reason not to use the normal meaning.

[@Nukestarmaster]

@@ErikvO No, it is not "sensible". How is it "sensible" to go to your combat phase without _beginning_ your combat phase.

[@hughmortyproductions8562]

​@@Nukestarmaster The reason it works that way is actually to prevent rules lawyering. If saying "combat" meant that you wanted to go to the beginning of combat step then because of how priority works, you opponent would technically be acting during your main phase. After you opponent's spells/abilities resolved it would still be you main phase and you would be able to do more things before moving to combat again.

[@Nukestarmaster]

@@hughmortyproductions8562 Well, that's just shitty game design.

[@rustygray5058]

So this shortcut was an answer to an older problem. Specifically, when the card Icy Manipulator was the best defensive card in the game because it could stop you from attacking with Ball Lightning. "Combat?" "I'll tap your 2/1 with Icy Manipulator" (Because opponent responded, we never went to combat - meaning we're still in the main phase) "I'll play Ball Lightning - a 6/1 with Haste. Combat?" As silly as it sounds, the new rule is a minefield for angle shooting which the old one was specifically designed to prevent. Even though no one plays Ball Lightning and Icy Manipulator these days, there are millions of similar interactions where the grey area between "go to combat" and "go to attacks" can be abused.

[@lordmeep5803]

Gabriel literally shaking while holding the dryad arbor is so indicative of how frustrating that play is

[@MTGGoldfish]

Yeah, Gab couldn't believe it.

[@wraith_youtube]

Yeah, it is gross. But to be fair, his opponent is actually 0% to blame here - they didn't try to hide the card in the slightest. 100% of the blame is on the idiot from WotC who let that version of Dryad Arbor into print.

[@muditjohar5323]

@@wraith_youtube agreed, he cheerfully put it in a different pile from the rest of his lands, but since no one pays attention to the lands being played, I feel for Gabriel as well. That printing was a mistake

[@ericwong1265]

@@muditjohar5323 I think it's more accurate to say he put it into a new pile of untapped lands rather than a different pile. I don't play many untapped lands onto tapped lands, they go to there own pile

[@ThatWildcard]

@@wraith_youtube printing it is fine but it shouldnt be tournament legal.

[@delathenleso5793]

The Combat ruling still gets my blood boiling. I've seen other judges try to defend this judge's call, but it was from the start a bad policy, and was enforced by a bad judge.

[@ZakanaHachihaCBC]

The judge enforcing policy doesn’t make them a bad judge. The policy back then was bad but that doesn’t make the judge enforcing it bad. Policy exists for a reason, and following that policy makes all games equal.

[@malcolmadair8373]

@@ZakanaHachihaCBC Not only was the Judge bad but so was the opponent. That was a shitty play by him and he knows the steps of the game very well that's why he cheated like he did. There was a language barrier and he exploited that. Dude was scummy as hell.

[@ZakanaHachihaCBC]

@@malcolmadair8373 Multiple judges were in that call, and they all were in the right with how they enforced the policy. The policy was bad and the opponent was being a rules lawyer, but the judges are far from being bad or wrong for enforcing the policy.

[@Willd2p2]

Fwiw the original shortcut working the way it did was, ironically, to prevent scummy rules lawyering. For a specific example, consider the defending player wanting to cast Cryptic Command to tap down the attacker's creatures before combat. Before the shortcut then the attacker could say combat, the defender respond with the Cryptic and then the attacking player could legitimately cast a haste creature and attack with it because the defender technically acted at the end of the first main phase (they interrupted the attacking player before they could move to the beginning of combat phase). The shortcut was introduced so that now the defender was acting during the beginning of combat phase instead, because the attacker was attempting to move to declare attackers. It was a bit of a ham-fisted way of solving the problem but while there were almost no beginning of combat triggers it worked fine. The shortcut outlived its usefulness by close to a decade and ended up causing way more of a problem than it solved but there was a legitimate reason for its existence. The rule being bad also doesn't make the judge bad for enforcing it correctly.

[@spunit262]

There two thing that make it even worst. 1. The rules people had warning that this was an issue before but completely dismissed it, as someone thing similar happened on LRR's PrePreRelease. 2. It's is truly completely undocumented, it appeared absolutely nowhere in the official rules documentation. Literally the only way to know about it is for a Judge to explain it to you in person or you watched the PPR.

[@joemcadams2101]

The Cesar combat one is still hard to watch. Like Kai said no one has ever used "combat" as that shortcut. Even then Weldfast Engineer is not a "may" trigger so he could always crew in response to the trigger. Fucking shameful.

[@elambruce7491]

Right? Like you can’t just…skip a step/phase

[@Willd2p2]

While the shortcut stuff was a complete mess (a rule that had outlived its usefulness by close to a decade being the issue, not the judges' enforcement of them) if the shortcut hadn't been an issue and he'd just gone to beginning of combat as he intended then trying to crew the Heart of Kiran without having chosen a target for the Weldfast trigger would be a textbook case of a missed trigger. This is because the trigger needs a target in order for it to be put on the stack, so taking any game action in the phase it would trigger without having chosen a target means the trigger is not on the stack and has therefore been missed.

[@TomGalonska]

Then why did I play on multiple tournaments up to grand prix where this exact shortcut was understood by everyone? The problem was not, that the shortcut was not in use, the problem was poor documentation, rules and a frankly stupid way to say the shortcut. And he also missed the Engineer's trigger... but that's a smaller thing. I don't think how much wiggle-room the judges have at a PT, I wish they would've just reversed to the first main phase, but you can't blame the judges... And it's dangerous to ever blame a player for calling a judge. It's not even comparable to the "Borborygmos" judge call. Nguyen didn't sit there for a minute and then figured out he could rules lawyer his way out of the situation, he immediately called a judge.That would mean, Nguyen is so damn smart, that he figured out an obscure overseight in the rules in that short amount of time... very unlikely

[@KyleTremblayTitularKtrey]

​@@TomGalonskawell he did figure out the oversight in the rules instantly because the second his opponant said going to combat and crewing this he called a judge immediately saying you cant crew that. So yes he immediately knew his opponent had goofed and immediately called the judge.

[@Clackerr]

I lost an important local tournament to that stupid combat ruling. I tried to trigger an ability at beginning of combat and crew in response but the opponent called a judge saying I had missed combat. I specifically said "at the BEGINNING of combat, I'm going to trigger this ability and crew with it on the stack" with emphasis (we had all been talking about the combat ruling before the tournament and the judges made announcements regarding it). The judge ruled that I had missed the combat step and passed to declare attackers because the word "combat" was used. My opponent knew exactly what I was doing and I was very clear with how I was doing it, but the opponent decided to be scum and take advantage of this terrible shortcut policy. Thankfully it's since changed, but I still get mad thinking back on it.

[@THECOLLECTOROFSOULS]

I'm glad I only played tournaments in magic online and could do shit in beginning of combat like we are supposed to. I would just rage quit a tournament after a bullshit like this. What did you have to do to go to beginning of combat? or should I say: Beginning of the step after the main phase.

[@AlexandrYudin77]

Why didn’t you hit that scum bag in the face. Next time he’d better to think before do shit like that

[@charnor2727]

​@@THECOLLECTOROFSOULS in order to use certain artifact monster, they have a crew cost. You need to use creatures that have at least the amount of power? as the crew x, in order to use the creature.

[@codysnyder4509]

You can't crew at the beginning of combat either

[@Clackerr]

@@codysnyder4509 You 100% can.

[@DekuLord]

#2 is like saying "untap" at the start of your turn skips your untap step and goes straight to the draw step. The fact that naming a phase does anything other than go into that phase is a piss in the face of game design.

[@person3176]

Number 2 really stinks, such an absurd ruling from the judges. I feel bad for Cesar.

[@MTGGoldfish]

Yeah, the language barrier made that one especially tough :(

[@ChaosForce08]

The tricky bit is also wanting to give Heart the boost since it has to be a legal target for the trigger when it goes on the stack (which it isn't because it's not a creature yet). That's a misstep in addition to the whole combat fiasco.

[@redram9]

@@ChaosForce08 literally beat me to the punch. Heart of Kiran needs to be a legal target at the beginning of the "Beginning of Combat" step. Targeting happens when an ability is put on the stack, and Heart was not an artifact creature when that happened.

[@Tawnos_]

Thien Nguyen was such an angle-shooting scumbag in that interaction. His approach and attitude are embarrassing to the community, and the judges shouldn't have allowed the trigger to be considered "missed" since Cesar was actively using that trigger.

[@KisoX]

Karma striked back. If I remember correcty, Cesar still won the match.

[@drmajalis1583]

the "combat" bit with Cesar got especially hair-pulling because I remember some judges at the time basically saying there was no way to declare that you were going to the START of the combat step, only the DECLARE ATTACKERS which means until the rule change there was officially no way to activate ANY "start of combat" triggers since any attempt to "go to combat" was understood by the rules to mean "go to declare attackers" you'd ALWAYS miss the trigger, but nobody knew that because literally everyone I had ever spoken to understood "go to combat" to mean "go to the START of combat" absolute madness

[@Silverizael]

Yeah, it's hilarious people tried to even defend that ruling, since it would make a huge amount of cards' abilities unusable in any manner.

[@drmajalis1583]

@@Silverizael one of the few times regular rel was unironically more comprehensive and accurate

[@albo_ar]

> judges at the time basically saying there was no way to declare that I talked to a lot of judges at the time, there were plenty of ways to go to the beginning of combat step. You have to say the complete name "Beginning of combat", not combat or you have to pass priority at your first main phase. As for the language barrier, combate means the same in spanish go to attackers step. I really hate this rule, but playing at the Pro Tour level was REL professional so you were expect to know that. Still hate it.

[@Silverizael]

@@albo_ar The judges involved in the decision said later that any use of the word "combat" in any form automatically moves players to declare attackers phase and there's no way to say you're going to "beginning of combat".

[@boonsaplenty3924]

@@albo_ar Could you show me where in the comprehensive rules or tournament rules that shortcut is stated? I'd really appreciate it, would clear up all this confusion about the word "combat" meaning "go to the phase called Combat Phase" and not to a very specific subsection of that phase that could just as quickly be declared by saying "attackers" or "declared attackers"

[@Moglorosh]

#2 was the scummiest thing, not just from the opponent but from the judges involved. Terrible ruling all around.

[@Zomburai45]

Yeah, that one feels the absolute worst for some reason. And because justice was never actually done. If I were Cesar I'd have a hard time not throwing cards and tables.

[@ryanmorfei6325]

I would seriously consider quitting competitive magic

[@Brian-qn7fn]

The judges didn't do anything wrong.

[@ForeverDayGreen]

@@Brian-qn7fn except they did. The beginning of combat trigger was explicitly mentioned by the player clarifying the phase of the game. Additionally the entire phase is called the combat phase so saying "going to combat" meaning going to the beginning of the combat phase is adhering to the rules more strictly than some "shortcut" a foreign player may or may not know. Lastly the spanish judge was not used to hear the players side but just to explain him the judges reasoning.

[@joshdavis3743]

@@ForeverDayGreen I disagree, the judge was just enforcing the rules. I think it is scummy on the opponents part to call the judge over. According to your logic the judge did something wrong on example number 9 then too since he enforced the rules?

[@MomirViggwilv]

I think Magic could really learn a lot from Yugioh for scenarios like 9 and 2. In Yugioh, "Rule Sharking" - using rules and policy in an attempt to gain an advantage, instead of to ensure fair and consistent gameplay - is forbidden as unsportsmanlike conduct, and gives the player a minor warning (which can become a major warning with serious consequences if it happens mutliple times). The fact that Magic doesn't have a rule like this is frankly ridiculous.

[@Tera_GX]

It's probably a tough argument for the rules committee, because on the other hand players shouldn't be hesitant to call over a judge. I think I'd welcome that change though, those two cases are pretty dang awful.

[@Lorddegree1]

And Magic is legitimately a complicated game with a lot of weird rules. I've played Magic on and off for ten years and there are still a fair number of rules interactions that I don't fully understand (and have had to double check that I'm right on when dealing with other players).

[@MomirViggwilv]

@@Lorddegree1 Magic has a comprehensive rulebook that explains even the strangest rules interractions. Yugioh at the moment of this writing does not have a comprehensive rulebook (and likely never will). And yet, Yugioh judges are able to enforce this anti-sharking rule fairly and consistenly, both in big tournaments and at local game stores. It's easier than you think.

[@LyleH-13]

the ability to rules lawyer is necessary in magic. as said above the nature of our comprehensive rules is literally why iplay. my wife has gotten me to play other games in the past and I get frustrated and hate the game because I try to play through certain board states and we can't figure out what should happen.

[@MomirViggwilv]

@@LyleH-13 There's a difference between comprehensive rules, and twisting rules for an unsportsmanlike advantage. Look at me with a straight face and tell me that there was any confusion about what Pithing Needle naming Borborygmos meant.

[@LilTuba]

Especially with the "combat" one, I think cheating is somehow actually less scummy than that level of rules lawyering. TIL you can rules lawyer to the point where you are essentially putting words in your opponents mouth, and some judge will happily endorse your degeneracy because sometimes judges just want to feel smart, not do the right thing.

[@ryanmorfei6325]

It definitely felt like the judge wanted to reward the lawyering more than actually enforce a fair game.

[@jayadratha9836]

@@ryanmorfei6325 The judge wasn't just choosing to "reward lawyering," the rules explicitly stated that saying "combat" means you are moving to declare attackers. Kai's failure to google stuff aside, it was spelled out in the official tournament rules which explain how shortcuts work. Judges are there to enforce the rules and are usually not given discretion to ignore them in extenuating circumstances (like a player not being a native English speaker) except when the rules explicitly allow them to (for example, judges have discretion to create a proxy or agree to shuffle a player's deck). The judge didn't have a choice, the rules (which everyone agreed weren't great and so were subsequently changed) were clear on the matter. Nguyen could've chosen not to call a judge and that would've been the more sporting thing to do, but the judge did exactly what the rules required.

[@ryanmorfei6325]

@@jayadratha9836 judges both in magic and in law aren't robots. They control how they choose to enforce the rules. A Magic judge's job is to enforce a fair and skillful game. If the rules are getting in the way of that, then they make the call on their ruling. It's a good thing that judges are people. We shouldn't strip them of human judgment which is very valuable in any judge role.

[@jayadratha9836]

​@@ryanmorfei6325 Judges in magic are instructed to enforce the rules and given very little discretion in how they do so. The downside is that sometimes enforcing the rules creates a situation that feels unfair. The upside is that there's a far greater degree of uniformity in judge rulings and so you rarely get bad rulings by bad/overzealous/prejudiced judges, which is what would likely happen if you had some sort of general judging principle that said "feel free to ignore the rules if you think enforcing them would be unfair." Any ruling other than the one given would've just been incorrect as the rules were clear on the issue and do not give the judges latitude in that area. The primary role of magic judges is not to just figure out what seems fair and decree it so, it's to know and parse a complicated set of rules and hand down the correct rulings based on those rules. Legal judges are also bound by law, procedure, and precedent but law has equitable remedies that allow judges to exercise more discretion. Magic judging does not have equitable remedies.

[@sephirothrr]

@@ryanmorfei6325 despite the unfortunate outcome in this situation, it's actually (generally) a good thing that judges don't have a lot of leniency in interpreting the rules - it eliminates any potential accusations of favoritism by keeping responses consistent. yeah, it sucks if you get screwed like happened here, but I feel like it'd be worse for the judges to be able to pick and choose which players get to benefit and which don't

[@SmashPortal]

That "combat" one is even more dumb because the judge should've rewound the turn up to the triggered ability. There were legal targets for the ability, so he _had_ to select a target. You can't just skip triggers and be forced to keep playing if you catch it before doing anything else. _Edit: Apparently that's newer rulings than when this took place. Still an unreasonable response, especially with context._

[@SmashPortal]

Also, there's a story where LSV (I think?) got top 8 with a storm deck with no storm payoff. He forgot to include Tendrils of Agony in his sideboard, so he sneakily stepped around naming the card and convinced his opponents he was able to win when he tutored from his sideboard.

[@SmashPortal]

Also, I don't think the Kibler situation was assessed fairly by the community. In the midst of the game, he's just trying to protect his Baneslayer Angel. Once Angel of Despair was no longer a threat to his Baneslayer, he was free to stop thinking about it and therefore easily missed a trigger. I'm not saying he didn't cheat, but he didn't _clearly_ cheat.

[@MTGGoldfish]

Ha, yeah, the LSV story is great! I also agree that Kibler wasn't cheating, although based on the rules at the time I think both players probably should have gotten a warning (since both players were responsible for making sure Angel of Despair's trigger resolved, and neither of them did). It's also wild that the judge didn't catch the Angel of Despair thing even though he was standing right there.

[@Donovarkhallum]

Thiens just an asshole though. Even if the other player did mean to go to attackers he was trying to skip over the triggered ability.

[@ZakanaHachihaCBC]

Triggers can be missed, it doesn’t matter if they are mandatory or not. Policy exists for a reason and this is what policy says was supposed to happen.

[@nooneimportanttoyou]

Cesar was robbed straight up. And no I don't feel bad for Nguyen afterwards. If someone had done this to him I would be just as upset. The whole thing was a mess and the judge not ruling in his favor was trash tier. I am glad they changed a lot of this stuff up.

[@Dragonroot95]

I genuinely wonder on the "But he missed the trigger" comment from opp regarding the Weldfast Engineer. That's a misleading statement that I think stuck in the judge's head, unfortunately, leading to a very weird ruling. Now, was it intentionally misleading? Probably not, opp probably just assumed it was missed.

[@nathana5718]

@@Dragonroot95 I would hazard a guess that Nguyen was trying to angle shoot here, taking advantage of the lack of clarity.

[@notme222]

If you pause at 28:32, it sounds like the rule at the time was specific. Stupid, but specific. I don't blame the judge for following the rules or Nguyen for calling a judge. I blame WotC for writing down a rule that says "We assume you're skipping a step." Note that Nguyen didn't misrepresent, feign confusion, or even suggest to the judge what the ruling should be. It was the judge who said "Did you say 'combat'? OK, our policy is..." It's never wrong to call a judge.

[@battosaijenkins946]

@MTGGoldfish, Listen I just wanna say.. PLEASE BRING BACK MANA BURN!!! please... Please... PLEASE!! I'm so sick of these newer players who have absolutely no care or regard for their mana usage. BRING IT BACK dammit!! Sorry... i gotta calm down now~ 🤦‍♂🤦‍♂

[@timlanigironu]

@@Dragonroot95 Nguyen definitely knew what he was doing to skew the judge's opinion on first impression and knew he was going against the spirit of the game.

[@bigwig8657]

I forgot how mad the combat made me, it felt so bad faith to say combat means a phase that doesn't contain combat in the name when English was clearly not primary language.

[@robrick9361]

The fact that Ceasar is using a second language makes any argument defending the judge objectively wrong.

[@natebeal18]

​@@robrick9361 His opponent was a fucking douchebag. And the judge was a dumbfuck.

[@PappaTom-ub3ht]

Just as silly for people who speak perfect English. "combat" meaning start the "..attacking.." phase is silly when the first part of the combat phase has the word combat in it.

[@ChrisStavros]

@@robrick9361 The judges' ruling is already incorrect on the basis that if a trigger happens on a step, you can't skip that step even if both players want and agree to, and invoke 15 million different magic words to do so, for whatever reason.

[@Rijnswaand]

The combat thing makes NO sense at all. I was always under the impression (and I played a lot BEFORE AEther Revolt) that asking to move to combat was done so that players who had tricks that might prevent your creatures from attacking had the opportunity to do so before knowing which creatures you choose to attack with. Because rewinding after revealing your attacks is basically access to information you didn't have before.

[@SentimentalApe]

Exactly

[@Lucky13Ravens]

As far as I can tell it was a misruling based on convention rather than rules. And the 'rules change' was rules being added to clarify for judges that the word combat means combat as is combat phase not attack as in attack step.

[@Pheenixz]

Ever since Lorwyn and Cryptic Command, combat was essentially asking to move to that step in case they tapped your board. I never heard such bullshit. If we wanted to attack we just asked "Declare attackers?".

[@IronicHavoc]

I understand why for competitive play the Arbor Dryad positioning could be problematic, but I do really like the flavor aspect of disguising itself as a land to ambush an unsuspecting attacker.

[@WCPFISH]

gotta say "this^^^

[@Nukestarmaster]

And the fact that one of it's printings was nearly indistinguishable from a normal forest seems to imply that that is how it's _supposed_ to be used.

[@leaffinite2001]

Yeah i think its funny but i think the fact it was only like that in the reprinting implies the card wasnt actually designed with that intent.

[@jonasdowner]

future sight had a ton of lands with that border. it wasn't visually distinct among lands at print.

[@Cloudy573]

That Wall of Roots thing is the wildest strategy I've heard about in a long time. lol

[@MTGGoldfish]

Wall of Boom baby!

[@redtitan9120]

@@MTGGoldfish How could you get infinite mana with wall of roots when it will die after 5 activations? Or am I missing something

[@KisoX]

@@redtitan9120 "In between phase" (Not actually a phase) does not trigger state based effects like die to 5 activations to happen.

[@redtitan9120]

@@KisoX sure, thanks

[@megauberduber]

@@KisoX that's so ridiculous lmao

[@turnipy88]

Don't forget the other way to abuse Cavern of Souls before the rule change- casting something your opponent thinks is uncounterable and then casting another spell using the mana you sneakily floated from the Cavern.

[@skuamato7886]

So basically the only way to "get them" today would be to have cavern on, let's say, humans, then tap 3 lands including cavern and cast a 2 cmc non-human creature and hope they don't notice?

[@pixywings7715]

@@skuamato7886 Or the old scum bag play of tap 4 lands in a pile for my 3 mana spell. Opponent sees you are tapped plays daze then you fan the lands and go nope I pay for it.

[@jordibear]

OR you can do what players still can do, which is tap your lands in a pile, but not tap cavern, hoping your opponent just "assumes" you used Cavern and it's in the tapped pile, and then you cast a second spell using the cavern that they now think is tapped and "aha, I can get this one, counter it", to which you reveal that you didn't use it the first time. This is far riskier for the caster however, bc it obviously leaves your first creature wide open, which I think makes this passable, since it's just a bluff play basically.

[@profanemagic5671]

@@jordibear you're not allowed to hide information by making a pile in htis manner. It's not a "bluff", it's blatant cheating.

[@Scud422]

Yeah, it's really scummy and I've seen it before. For any confused, it's usually along the lines of "Tap cavern and 2 plains for three white, use 2 of it for Human Card A." Opp: "resolves" "Use the floating cavern mana for Human Card B." Opp: 😡

[@moonman2749]

The Kibler one isn’t that crazy to forget. He was so focused on Baneslayer itself that it slipped his mind that the trigger would still hit something else. Like, “I didn’t put Baneslayer down, so I’m safe.” and stop thinking.

[@TetsuRiken]

I've played plenty of games where me and my buddies forget triggers then remember like 2 or 3.turns later

[@nekrataali]

I'm glad they changed the rule. Really frustrating to play for your opponent because they miss all their triggers due to sloppy play/communication. Everyone is new at one point, so it's good for experienced players to help new players by walking them through things. But if we're at comp REL? Constantly missing triggers feel like the opponent shouldn't be playing at that level at best and deliberate cheating with the intent to cover it up as "oh sorry I'm just nervous" at worst. We had a cheater at my shop who was constantly doing the latter (often against newer players) who would conveniently remember he missed a trigger when it was beneficial to him. I caught him when he slipped up trying to play an extra land on his end step "Oh I forgot to play my tapped land in my main" and then when he drew a card for no reason when I up'd my Karn Liberated. "Why are you drawing a card? It's still my turn?" "Oh I thought you were done." "I'm literally waiting for you to exile a card from Karn. JUDGE!" It's loosey-goosey, fast and wild play that allowed cheaters to thrive for a long time. Now, we can just be like "Too bad? You missed your trigger get fucked lel."

[@Aw3som3-117]

It's also worth noting that just because he remembered that the Angel could kill something doesn't mean he remembered the exact wording of the card and knew that it *had* to kill something. There's plenty of cards that I could tell you *most* of what they do off the top of my head, but that doesn't mean I know all the nitty gritty details that rarely come up. I think it's very likely he noticed that Kibler noticed his opponent could have killed something, but not that by not doing so it resulted in an illegal board state.

[@Aw3som3-117]

@@jairomy Okay, so by that logic he is a much higher caliber player than his opponent and therefore could never have missed something *that his opponent missed*, and not only that, but knew exactly how it worked whereas his opponent clearly missed the entire trigger? People make mistakes. Putting Kibler on a pedestal and basically saying he could never forget anything about the game is not only putting too much pressure on him but also belittling his opponent by not putting that same level of responsibility on him. Is he not also a "player of that caliber"? Is Kibler so much more above reproach?

[@lavenderwalrus9875]

@@jairomy bullshit. no matter how skilled a player you are you won't remember every tiny detail of everycard. sure you will remember the important stuff like "oh angel of despair that can blow something up when it comes down" but remembering that it is specifically not a may trigger is completly reasonable to forget, and as others have pointed out his opponent was also a "player of that caliber" and he not only forgot that it wasnt may but forgot the trigger completely, so what are you saying he was also clearly lying? you think he deliberate skipped his own trigger losing himself the game because what? he thought it would be a laugh?

[@kiwidave8930]

Still my favourite part of number 9 is at the next PT, Marshal on coverage, going over to LSV's top 8 match to check what he named with pithing needle to be told "grislebrand enraged".

[@davidfite7198]

OMG that's great

[@hurktang]

Imagine having the new archfiend of dross, with 1 counter left. And declaring upkeep as your opponent gleefully accept your defeat. And you call the judge because you said "upkeep" so your not in the "at the beginning of the upkeep phase" any more.

[@wormspeaker]

I mean I don't know Thien Nguyen from Adam, but just from the expressions on his face when he started rules lawyering and as he watched the judge converse with Cesar Segovia, it's obvious he was enjoying having "got" his opponent on a technicality. It's the kind of behaviors I hate the most out of portions of the MtG community. So, I don't have much sympathy for him regarding the backlash. Honestly that's what this whole video is basically about. Slavish adherence to the strictest interpretation of every minute detail of the written rules rises to nearly masturbatory levels for some corners of the community. Instead of asking your opponent to clarify their actions in the event of any uncertainty, their immediate instinct is to rules lawyer their way into advantage on a technicality. It just makes the game less fun to play, less fun to watch, and just less fun to interact with in any capacity.

[@delathenleso5793]

This is why Commander took off, I think. Commander has the unwritten rule of "oh, we know the format's broken. Let's just have fun instead, and if you missed a trigger, let's try to make it right." Whereas competitive Magic... it can be *great*, but when it's bad, it's just *soooo'* bad.

[@ryanmorfei6325]

Completely agree

[@sutfolsemaj]

I hope he has people in his life that try to scumbag him the way he tried to scumbag his opponent. Scum deserves scum.

[@kueapel911]

@@delathenleso5793 when someone regret their move in commander, they just beg to redo lmao

[@delathenleso5793]

@@kueapel911 ... And? That's the correct move, imo, because we're all playing a *game*, where we're meant to have *fun*. I like competitive Magic, because the highs are high indeed, but when I just want to enjoy the game, Commander is where it's at!

[@billyofcourse7667]

Another classic moment was at pro tour dragons of tarkir. Patrick Chapin was in the feature match being broadcast and activated an ajani mentor of heroes to look at the top four cards of his library and take a creature, planesalker or aura. He then forgot to reveal the card he selected before putting it into his hand. Judge was called and after much appeal and deliberation it was ruled as a game loss according to the rules at the time. This resulted in a rules change that in a case such as this where you fail to reveal, your opponent is basically allowed to look at your hand and have you discard a card from it as a judge resolution to the issue.(this may have also lead to the rule change that allows the head judge to at their discretion utilize coverage footage when making a ruling since they could have seen that chapin did in fact select a legal target had this been allowed at this event. It was not allowed in magic at one point).

[@gamingwhilebroken2355]

I think it should be if it’s clear which card was pick it has to then be revealed (with cameras that easy). Otherwise you have to reveal your hand. That should sufficient imo.

[@TheKazzerscout]

I love that not only did Adrian Sullivan have that bonkers way of playing, his opponent in the clip has an altered full white border deck. What a strange pairing

[@JStack]

27:30 Nguyen may have felt bad after, but by his demeanor and words during the incident, it was clear he was obsessed with advancing. Sympathy gone

[@andrewolding8747]

This combat one is throwing me through an absolute loop. I've played table top since Scourge and events since Kahn's. I have never once assumed the shorthand "combat" or "go to combat" refer to anything other than an attempt to proceed from the main phase into the Begin Combat phase. That is absolute nonsense that it has ever been ruled that that shorthand is to go to declare attacks.

[@Tristyn_Waterman]

Number 2 is so frustrating, thein's a scumbag for immediately calling a judge to jump on that ridiculous technicality he happened to know about

[@DoubleZDogg]

The judges who decided "combat" meant "declare attackers" instead of "going to start of combat" (WTF? How does that make any sense?) are the true villains of this story.

[@StEvEn420BrUlE]

​@@DoubleZDogg those judges should be stripped of their judge title

[@TomGalonska]

Nonononono, don't make players bad for calling a judge. If you watch the recording of the PT, you see that Thien quickly called the judge after Cesar declared attackers. He didn't sit there for a minute or so and figured out, he could rules-lawyer the situation. @Zack Z Don't make the judges the villains either. The policy was bs, yes, but as a judge you have to enforce the policies.

[@ich3730]

@@StEvEn420BrUlE For doing their job? Weird take

[@mr.joesterr5359]

@@ich3730hey did their job poorly. The rules never say that you can assume someone means something different than what they say without asking them first. They never did. Terrible judges

[@Crimby.]

Seth, I’ve never commented on your videos. But I really needed to go out of the way and say how well researched and thought out this video was. It was so interesting. Please do more videos like this and not just gameplay videos. You’re doing great work! Glad this popped up on my page.

[@MTGGoldfish]

Thanks!

[@profanemagic5671]

@@MTGGoldfish I have to completely agree with this, it's very well researched. You even taught me something new in the "Wall of Boom" deck, and that's very hard to do, considering I've been playing for 20 years now (kinda crazy to say) and regard myself as a pretty big nerd when it comes to quirky stories like that.

[@Iguessimhere154]

I think what makes this video really interesting for me is the fact that some of these rulings were within the last 5+ years which is relatively recent still. The mulligans ruling especially stood out the most for me cause I started playing magic in late Sept 2019 when Throne of Eldraine was at the tail end of being released. So it's funny to put that into perspective on just how new some of these rulings are

[@isaakward4393]

Glad you’ve joined the community man!

[@johnmraz4332]

Yeah that combat one pissed me off back then. I've been playing for 20 years and I've never once used "combat" to skip beginning of combat. I've always done "Go to combat" - wait - "Declare attackers" when I'm playing competitively

[@UniGya]

I think the lesson we should take from these is that MTG needs an anti-rule sharking rule like Yugioh. There is literally a rule in Yugioh’s tournament policy that says that attempting to abuse calling a judge over very minor rules infractions is worth a minor warning

[@Merc1987]

i mean, understanding why someone might commit the heresy of lands in front of creatures and seeing it in action, actually looks pretty helpful from a tournament standpoint. It clearly shows how much resources a player has open first, then the cards played are always readable by the opponent from a brief look, rather than having to read upside down. Understand standardising it to the majority though!

[@entertainmentinc9735]

Lands don’t have text

[@sammystevens4140]

@@entertainmentinc9735 And yet the most popular lands in almost every format have more than the one line that just allows the card to tap for mana. Mutivault, Inkmoth and Blinkmoth nexus, cavern of souls, all the recent other creature lands, Valakut, and I'm sure the channel lands are something that could be played and returned to hand on a later turn. Many many lands have much much more text then allowing them to simply tap for mana. I certainly appreciate the neat and clear playstyle of Adrian whom had a neat backstory as to why he played his cards that way, I understand the ruling as not to confuse board states for the mirrors during coverage.

[@entertainmentinc9735]

@@sammystevens4140 Non-lands have more text than lands. Your argument doesn’t make sense.

[@nekrataali]

@@entertainmentinc9735 Knowing which lands are untapped is beneficial to the opponent, though. The most frequently uttered sentence in MtG is "Mana untapped?" I could probably count the number of times I've asked my opponent which creatures are doing what on one hand and mostly because they tapped something with vigilance when they didn't need to.

[@entertainmentinc9735]

@@nekrataali if lands are up front, Reverse everything you said but for creatures.

[@otakuamerican5190]

I feel that trigger thing with kibler one time me and my buddy were playing casual. I was running a rakdos vampire tribal and he was running dimir zombies. He had dielgaf captain and a bunch of zombie tokens so I cast mizzium mortar for overload wiping his board. We both forgot his aristocrat ability to ping every time a zombie dies and the game state was fucked.

[@alexvalentim1418]

#2 is total BS. If it was me I was going to ask for the legal rule printed saying that, and if they fail to give me, I would Drop the championship in front of live coverage in protest

[@sutfolsemaj]

Right? If some subset of people in the community CHOOSE to have a certain phrase mean a certain thing, then they can be held to that meaning. It is not right to hold someone to slang that they didn't even know existed because it isn't official anywhere but in the minds of the people trying to screw that person over.

[@muditjohar5323]

Good thing he didn’t do what u did considering he went on to win match 3. Really unfair decision but quitting only hurts him

[@jordibear]

And they would have given you the written rule that says that, from the MTG tournament rulebook. "A statement such as "I'm ready for combat" or "Declare attackers?" offers to keep passing priority until an opponent has priority in the Beginning of Combat step. Opponents are assumed to be acting then unless they specify otherwise." - Magic Tournament Rules. 1 July 2009 Literally the example given in the book. And this rule did much more good than harm for many many years, until the magic landscape changed and "beginning of combat" triggers became useful enough, and the game complex enough that someone may want to react to those. This wasn't some technicality or misunderstanding of an ESL speaker, it was a written rule at the time, and the judge was enforcing that rule as it's written. Whether the rule is correct or not is not that judge's decision to make, his job is to enforce those rules equally and consistently across every game to ensure fair and consistent play with little to no exceptions. And there is no realistic way for anyone to know if a rule like that needs changing until it fails, and this just had the rotten luck of being the event where the rule failed.

[@NestedQuantifier]

@@jordibear He said move to combat, which means move to combat phase. Not, I'm ready for combat, or "declare attackers". If you are going to be pedantic, then be pedantic.

[@phil8910]

@@jordibearyou cant even be pedantic correctly 😭

[@nathandorsey9145]

The language barrier definitely made the ruling worse but let's be honest here The idea that you can declare you want to go to combat and it takes you anywhere but the phase named "beginning of combat" is absurd.

[@MTGGoldfish]

Yeah, I agree.

[@mynt4033]

Jon Finkle's Worlds Finals Innistrad had his opponent run a 59 card deck which would have disqualified that player. But Finkle advocated to the judge to let him stay and play. Finkle lost and was ok with it. THAT is the level of ethics everyone should aspire to be.

[@Pheenixz]

Finkel is a true player though. Love of the game through and through. He could have won that match as well, I was gutted for him. Damn Dungeon Geists

[@ryanmorfei6325]

The judges are the bad guys in every mtg tournament story I’ve ever heard. Ruling that “go to combat” means you skip your beginning of combat step and all triggers that would happen there is complete nonsense.

[@MindLaboratory]

You hear about those ones, but they are right 99.99% of the time.

[@bryanprillaman1857]

That was literally the written policy at the time, and had been for over 20 years. And at the time it was created to prevent some scumbag moves that saw tournament play as late as cryptic command being in standard. For your specific complaint, your issue should be directed at the Magic tournament rules…. Cause here’s what they said at the time: “A statement such as "I'm ready for combat" or "Declare attackers?" offers to keep passing priority until an opponent has priority in the beginning of combat step. Opponents are assumed to be acting then unless they specify otherwise.” Before the influx of decent ‘beginning of combat’ triggers, this policy helped more than it harmed. But new cards changed the landscape

[@StEvEn420BrUlE]

​@Bryan Prillaman yeah except he had a card that triggered at the beginning of combat, and spoke a different language. It's fucking obvious he was in the beginning of combat and pointed out. Those judges just didn't want to be proven wrong and nyguen knew what he was doing

[@bryanprillaman1857]

@@StEvEn420BrUlE at the time the missed trigger policy combined awkwardly with the “combat” shortcut. Again, your problem is misplaced. The judge wasn’t wrong. They enforced the policy at the time correctly. It seems someone’s hurt you in the past and it’s more convenient to blame a judge instead of blaming a document.

[@StEvEn420BrUlE]

@Bryan Prillaman again, he was explaining, in broken English, that he couldn't skip to attackers because he had a triggered ability at the beginning of combat. The judges were bad. Nyguen knew what he was doing and he's a piece of shit

[@Kukyodragonfly]

The Wall of Roots exploit lasted like 6 months after the change was implemented in my lgs/playgroup, since we didn't had that much access to the information of changes

[@MrPiotrV]

From someone who's been playing for a very long time, "combat" never meant "I want to skip beginning of combat and go straight to declaring attackers". No idea what these judges were talking about.

[@williamdrum9899]

It only meant that in high level tournaments, and it really shouldn't have

[@Lucky13Ravens]

​​@@williamdrum9899Yeah but it didn't. That was convention, not rules. The rules were always to declare changing phases, which when you moved to combat, meant you said something involving combat.

[@kaemonbonet4931]

No one has ever said "I end main phase one, beginning my beginning of combat step"

[@Laezar1]

That combat thing is just infuriating, an international tournament should try to make language barriers less impactful not more.

[@Danceofmasks]

I know my story is way before world tour even existed, but here goes ... At a tournament, I was getting pissed off that every opponent was drawing a card before untapping. It mattered a lot to me, because I had a troll winter orb + icy manipulator deck. So after one opponent insulted me when I reminded him that it's not how the game works, I called over a judge. Over, and over, and over. Every turn. Finally, I insisted that if his lands are tapped during the draw phase, that must mean he tapped them during upkeep ... and therefore he should take mana burn. I'd like to think, that in some small way, I was responsible for the removal of the mana burn rule.

[@Kavou]

That judge who did DQ the player with the winning spell, reminds me when I was very young and used to go to Fantasy Stores and they always had that 1 old boomer who was always very awkward and apathetic and would even be aggresive towards you for no reason, that judge looked like he came out one of those stores.

[@dillonoickle5841]

i remember when i first started magic there was an older guy who played a combo deck and wouldnt say anything he would just play cards and wouldnt let you touch card to read or explain how it worked at all so i just kind of had to take his word that he beat me. which i could buy but it was always a sinking feeling when i would play him.

[@LazyQahnaarin]

I love how most of these rule changes screwed over those rules-lawyer technicalities. So many victories were straight-up robbed from people by scumbag rules-lawyering.😤

[@williamdrum9899]

It just annoys me that these rules couldn't have been changed BEFORE people were screwed by them... blame Wizards not the players

[@mtgpackrat7945]

Rules lawyering and angle shooting are two of the things I despise most in Magic. Also this does not happen often but opponents asking intentional misleading questions about the board state or your intended play is highly frustrating.

[@whammaster]

A lot of these situations really urks me because people who go that hard are looking for any way out of a situation, even if it means being scummy.

[@d.j.8059]

Yeah. One of the things Magic tournaments taught me was about conscience and sportsmanship over winning at all costs. There were a couple of questionable situations that came up in PTQs or money prize tournaments where I had to choose between what would benefit me and what was the right thing to do. I admit I took the selfish way a couple of times (not outright cheating or lying...but also not saying as much as I could). It happened with me playing once, and then also with my watching a friend's match and I felt sick about it both times. After that, I started not just adhering to the letter of the rules at all times, but also the spirit. I called a judge on myself at a Grand Prix to earn a game loss for not de-sideboarding after I drew my opening hand The sideboard card wasn't even obvious and I could probably have gotten away with it, but not worth it. I even cost myself a top 8 spot in a PTQ once because my opponent, who was newer at competitive tournaments, was asking me if we could intentionally draw the last round to both make the top 8, and I explained that I could but he couldn't, so we should play. We did, and he beat me. But I'd rather that than take the draw and knowingly screw someone over.

[@AlexandrYudin77]

Or poor nerds. Imagine if you get into REAL sports.

[@orzhov12]

Bob and Thien are pathetic men. These dudes are so desperate to win, they resorted to scummy rules lawyering. Not only did Bob admit he knew what Bradley meant with the Needle, he never even apologized. Hell, Thien even played the victim when there was backlash from the community. Cesar must have already felt very uncomfortable because of the language barrier and to have everyone in the room against him when he is obviously correct in his terminology must be so frustrating.

[@leanin2it]

And the judges that allow these obviously scummy plays should be ashamed. Their lack of judgment is damaging to the integrity and reputation of the game.

[@deejkdeejk]

Bob did nothing wrong, baby

[@CerealKiller143]

@@deejkdeejk Agreed. Pithing Needle states "Name a card". He named a separate legally existing card, and therefor did NOT name the card on the field.

[@deejkdeejk]

@@CerealKiller143 it's crazy how many people disregard that very important fact, another card exists with that exact name

[@CerealKiller143]

@@deejkdeejk Exactly. There are many cards that share a name partially and many cards with multiple versions like most planeswalkers and a lot of creatures like Omnath.

[@Mr_Skellington]

Love these history/non-gameplay videos.

[@MTGGoldfish]

Thanks!

[@ryanmorfei6325]

Imagine if nassif flips cruel ultimatum off the top of his library, then taps his lands and gets immediately disqualified.

[@konoxians2]

right??

[@ofrund]

Why would he get disqualified due to that?

[@ryanmorfei6325]

@@ofrund in the video, a different pro, years earlier, gets disqualified in finals because he cast his spells before tapping his lands to cast them. I was joking that it would be even more disappointing if that poor ruling applied to nassif's legendary cruel ultimatum.

[@ofrund]

@@ryanmorfei6325 I see I am not familiar with mtg history thank you for clarifying

[@yoav.kats6328]

It's worth noting that the rule change at number 3 will later allow for weird interactions with cards like kci as it let to use the kci ability multiple times at once (as long as you declaring your intend to cast a spell). This allow for cards like scrap trawler and myr retriever to trigger at the same time bringing each other back.

[@seandun7083]

It also allows for certain cards and mechanics to be used in their intended manner such as Chandra, torch of defiance's +1 allowing you to tap mana after seeing the card and the miracle mechanic working at all.

[@williamdrum9899]

Also this is another weirdness with targeting in general. I recently had to explain to a player that, no matter what order a spell or ability's actions are written, you are required to declare targets before you do anything else. And don't get me started on the difference between Pyroblast and Red Elemental Blast, i.e. "Counter target blue spell" vs. "Counter target spell if it's blue" are not the same effect!

[@seandun7083]

@@williamdrum9899 definitely. It's also weird how certain spells that change what they are allowed to hit depending on a condition must sometimes be worded so they can target anything, but only affect it if the condition is met (fatal push, anoint with affliction and apex of nethroi for example).

[@williamdrum9899]

@@seandun7083 I think it would be an improvement if the target choices were bolded. For example. Counter *target blue spell* Counter *target spell* if it's blue

[@nathansofparadise]

Wow I've been playing magic for years and I've never heard of the between turns phase. Thanks for digging up that gem.

[@Genxim]

I love the idea of using Stasis to make infinite mana

[@mattc3581]

Who remembers the 'end of turn' phase when all end of turn effects went on the stack. Which you could then respond to. And if those responses had an end of turn effect then they had missed their chance and hung around till the next one before triggering. You could cast 'Waylay' in your opponent's end of turn and then attack with the creatures it created in your turn because they were already in play at the start of your turn!

[@wiskiblue]

Another fun use of Stasis is to play it after someone plays a Teferi's Protection. They don't have an untap step so they don't phase back in lmao.

[@keagancollins3243]

I love the history of mtg videos like this

[@ben_clifford]

As soon as you introduced all of these, I knew exactly where you were going. Except for #3. I've never heard of that riot, nor heard the quote from that girl in that commercial. I didn't know why you can tap lands while casting a spell, and I didn't know that changed with the big 6th edition changes. Thanks for that sweet knowledge bomb!

[@Zer0LifeNegi]

The combat one should have had the judge removed from staff for telling the player what the player’s intentions were and disregarding the actual steps of the combat phase. That’s not even Rules Advisor level of knowledge. That’s literally in any beginner’s guide. Such a farce.

[@daledullnig1778]

Indeed. Intentions cannot supercede the literal spoken word. Such as with choosing to interpret Borborygmos as Borborygmos Enraged.

[@thisispotatos9957]

The mana tapping one is super interesting. I see the reason for it. It proves to the game state that you have the proper mana. I think casting a spell you don't have the mana for, someone responds too it with a card revealing a card from their hand or springing a trap, then you go to tap mana and find out you did not have the right mana. Can't unring that bell, I feel the rule was there for a reason, and its to prevent this stuff.

[@edwardalyassin7887]

The worst thing about number 2 is that there never was a rule that stated the word combat would enter assign attackers phase. They literally made that up on the spot based on the fact that that is how people tend to use the phrase. It would be like me playing a card named guard and a judge saying that I can't play that card because I just used the magic passcode word that assigns defenders so I missed the opportunity to cast guard. It doesn't feel at all like the judges were being impartial there.

[@StormyWaters2021]

That is how the rules were. If you said "combat", you were assumed to pass priority until your opponent had priority during Beginning of Combat. If they said "okay", then you're at Declare Attackers.

[@edwardalyassin7887]

@@StormyWaters2021 That was never a rule, just a Common understanding.

[@jiaan100]

​@edwardalyassin7887 it was the official judges interpretation of the rules to be used at every event, so yes it was a rule.

[@bigwig8657]

Wizards was a menace for that updated forest dryad art.

[@williamdrum9899]

Yeah, also whenever they only print a card as a foil and tell you that you're marking your cards by using a curled foil... bruh these guys are making shitty product and blaming the players

[@SgtWicket]

I don’t have a lot of respect for players who used rule technicalities to punish their opponent, not because they misunderstood, but to get the advantage.

[@TJForceIX]

When Vehicles were first spoiled, I remember specifically looking into when you had to Crew them so you could attack and finding that if you say "go to combat" it's already too late. Didn't really think of the implications of that at the time, just remembered not to do it. Good they fixed that because it genuinely made no sense at all.

[@DiabloTommaso]

That Ceasar "combat" mess is a disaster. The judge shuold take a break. The opponent is slimy as well

[@xenonchikmaxxx]

I saw translation of PT Aether Revolt and I really felt damn pain for Segovia, how unfair it was.

[@Zerocooljd]

the "combat" one drives me crazy. the judges knew his intent. to still make the call that he skipped the beginning of combat is ridiculous.

[@dustyfox6511]

The Aether Revolt ruling was really the tournament organizers problem rather than a problem with the game. Like saying that "combat" is "declare attackers" rather than beginning combat is incredibly moronic. The game rules themselves don't need to cover implied signalling between players to this extent. If there was confusion they should ask for clarity. It also still makes no sense that you can actively ignore abilities on your own cards if it would benefit you.

[@davidnewman4678]

This video reminds me of a time when I was about 13 years old or so and just getting into tournament magic. My magic budget was the $10-$20 my mother would give me to go do the tournament, so it was hard to be competitive at all at the time. It was when M10 had came out but before Zendikar came out. I was, for the first time in my life doing well in a tournament running a mono green stomp deck. For reporting round results we had slips that we had to fill out and both players had to sign. At my local game store there was a group of folks trying to make a pro team and when it was announced that I had made top 4, for the first time ever, two of them came up to the owner and told him they had made a mistake on their round slip, and because of 'tie breakers' and the judge going along with it, put me at like 5th or 6th place. I'm pretty sure I went into the back room and cried, never placing in a tournament again until I became an adult and had my own money. Felt real bad.

[@once.upon.a.time.]

That's actually really awful 😣I wonder how they sleep at night knowing they ripped off a 13yo? Like good god that's low.

[@michaeldegrave5905]

The Cavern one is interesting because it then allowed some different scummy plays where the Cavern player doesn't have to say they've used the Cavern to cast the spell at all so the counterspell player has to be vigilant to check which lands were tapped for each creature spell. I remember it being pretty annoying in Standard where the spells cost more mana, having to check the pile of lands my opponent had just tapped to see which ones they'd used over and over. Can be pretty easy to tap 4+ lands and have the Cavern at the bottom barely visible if visible at all.

[@Xahnel]

At that point, I think it would be reasonable to demand either the opponent declare they are using the card, or demand they keep it separate so you don't have to constantly check their mana to see if they pulled a sneaky.

[@NinjaPylon]

It was so sad to see the shortcut to declare attackers step "go to combat?" being abused when it came about to protect players from devious plays in the first place. Devious players would ask "go to combat" and one of two things would often happen: 1: Their opponent would cast Cryptic Command, or use Icy Manipulator, to tap down their creatures preventing a lethal attack. The devious player would then claim they passed priority at the end of the main phase, the opponent cast something, and now they can cast their Ball Lightning or similar, since the game is still in a main phase. 2: The opponent would say 'ok' and do nothing, correctly thinking it's the beginning of combat step where the devious player must act first and pass priority again, which is where the opponent would cryptic or icy. The devious players would immediately swing for lethal without passing priority by claiming he already asked if he could attack when he asked "go to combat". Edit: source: I got "icy balled" a couple times in my youth.

[@WCPFISH]

Omg the "go to combat" ruse was total shit, i remember this

[@shaunmcisaac782]

The old old rules didn't have a beginning of combat step, so the "Ball Lightning Around Icy Manip" was a valid play. Wait til they tap your 2/2, then cast a haste guy (almost always ball lightning). If they tap nothing just attack with 2/2.

[@rileykwinn3527]

Magic the Gathering, the game where putting the card from your hand onto the battlefield before tapping your lands is a disqualifiable offense, but choosing not to remind your opponent that they missed a trigger is professional etiquette

[@refuse2lose1985]

The only reason Kibler might get a pass is because this can be explained by him not knowing the trigger is mandatory. He clearly knew about the trigger, but sometimes it is pretty easy to miss a mandatory trigger.

[@chrishouk6276]

Its also fair play on his part to NOT say anything since its a tournament. Back then the rules were made to make the game more fair for people who were just getting into the game, but it should also be stated that making mandatory triggers a table responsibility is absurd on the tournament level when every player is going to be going for every advantage they can get. If a trigger is missed, thats a miss play on your part, not mine

[@TheBoss4711]

I have been playing since just before M10 (2009) was released and the shortcut "going to combat" was never meant to be "declare attacks." it's only that it's the very next thing that happens in most cases because the cases where it matters are more rare.

[@hesnotbad9045]

That combat call is perhaps the stupidest judge call I’ve ever seen

[@Melvinvanharn]

I heard about a guy playing g/w/b junk in old extended. He was borrowing the deck and wasn't familiar with all the cards. He had a game under control, but needed a finisher fast. He tried to Demonic Consult and wanted to get a "Hunted Wumpass"-a 6/6 for G3. He couldn't remember the name and said "Humpuss Wumpass" and his opponent called the judge. Judge said he needed to name an actual card, and even though both the judge and opponent knew the card he wanted, they wouldn't tell him. He had to Consult for a Cursed Scroll instead and couldn't close out the game in time.

[@1337-Nathaniel]

Combat shenanigans always makes me think back to kitchen table magic games with friends, with them just retreating attacking creatures after finding out it would put them at a disadvantage.

[@lordadlerklinge570]

We still sometimes do that in our local Commander group, because often times you loose Track over a 4 player boardstate and miss that someone has something in the graveyard or even a creature with flying or deathtouch that you just blanked out about or missed being played 😅

[@TheJadeFist]

The sneaky Dryad Arbor is actually kinda thematically inline with the card itself. Which is a forest you walk through, that is infact animate and not normal trees.

[@isaacwhitson7341]

i kind of like the sneaky dryad arbor. if you think about it, a dryad is supposed to be a sneaky spirit that can hide in a forest. from a rules standpoint it's a little unfair, but from a flavor perspective it's perfect.

[@joshuatran1556]

Yugioh has a similar card to pithing needle called Prohibition, which prevents the use of a single named card. A similar situation occured where a player named "Black Luster Soldier", a card that has never seen competitive play instead of "Black Luster Soldier, Envoy of the Beginning". In this case however, the established ruling was the opposite: since the named card was a valid choice, then that would be the prohibited card. Later rulings clarified that while the exact name doesn't need to be said, a description of the card would be sufficient. This has also come up in deck lists for tournaments. A recent event saw many players write "Agido" instead of "Agido the Ancient Sentinel" and were forced to either include a terrible card or drop from the tournament.

[@PurpleFiiilth]

The pithing needle one is a total non issue and I'm surprised people disagree with the ruling. With Prohibition you are absolutely expected to know the name of the card you are trying to use it against, to judge it any other way just opens the game up to additional ambiguity and a bunch of other potentially weird situations. This is a "Just read the card" type of moment.

[@jeffe2267]

I really loved this trip down memory lane. Magic historian stuff is nice.

[@ericfaulk2204]

A lot of these are great examples of those borderline cases where you're not sure that anything wrong is being done, but you're pretty sure that it's not exactly right.

[@metleon]

I love the wrong name example simply because Yu-Gi-Oh has basically always had that current Magic ruling. It's probably because no one's going to remember the full name of a card like Karakuri Steel Shogun mdl 00X "Bureido". It might actually be less restrictive in Yu-Gi-Oh, since you could just say something like "the lv 8 Karakuri" to designate the card.

[@d.j.8059]

#5- the "Between Turns Phase". I'm an old fart who played in an "Extended" format PTQ the one weekend "Wall of Boom" was legal. It was ridiculous; and players were actively trying to figure out other ways to abuse the "between turns" step, so it's a good thing they changed the rules immediately. Another way "outside of turn" effects were abused was in the summer of 1999 with the "White Lighning" deck. This was a mono-white aggro deck with 4 copies of the card "Waylay". Waylay cost 2W, was an Instant, and read as follows: "Put three Knight tokens into play. Treat these tokens as 2/2 white creatures. Remove them from the game at the end of the turn." The tokens didn't have haste, so unless you had a card that gave creatures haste, the only way to use this card was on defense. Well....that was when Waylay was printed in 1998. In Spring 1999 came the new core set "Sixth Edition" and with it an overhaul of the rules. One of the changes was that basically everything "stacked"...including "at end of turn" triggers. So you can see where this is going. Let your opponent's "end of turn" trigger check go on the stack, in response, play Waylay, check resolves everything that was there when the check started...which does not include your three brand-spanking new Knights. Suddenly, for the low, low cost of 3 mana (and even better, used during your opponent's end step), you've got 6 (or 9 with a Crusade or Glorious Anthem- the Knights were white creatures) power worth of new creatures ready to wreak havoc on your opponent's face for one turn. The funny thing is, if you know your Magic history, the Waylay trick wasn't even in the top dozen utterly broken things you could do in Standard Magic in 1999. Even cheating 6 power worth of Knights into play to bash along with your other creatures on turn 4 couldn't stand up to combo decks that could kill you on turn 3. In Standard. That was....a wild time.

[@evernewb2073]

So WotC explicitly outlawed a player's efforts to make their boardstate _more_ readily legible to their opponent? I wonder what they would've thought of my summon-sickness placement: I'd play monsters facing upside down (text towards opponent) as a summon sick position with the added benefit of it placing the text towards them for them to read the card, the habit immediately spread to the rest of my playgroup because _it actually denotes summon sickness_ and does it in a helpful way to boot.

[@williamdrum9899]

Yep, all because it looks better on camera. Personally, I have two rows of creatures, the back row is everything summoning sick

[@evernewb2073]

@@williamdrum9899 I actually tried that out for a bit, it was definitely better than nothing but it felt like it mostly just made the board state take up more room and looked less clear especially if you're moving stuff around to make room. upside down critters is just about as simple and unintrusive as it gets but also very clear and obvious and accidentally helpful so I ended up right back where I started after trying out a half dozen different ideas.

[@evernewb2073]

@@williamdrum9899 I think the second best was to drop the critter in the center of the table, kept doing that option in the big group games since it let anyone easily grab it to read it.

[@raleldor]

These rules lawyers are what got me to stop playing competitively.

[@mattm7798]

Apparently is was SUPER bad in the 90s. I feel it's a ton better now.

[@edwinortiz1262]

same here

[@tymandude1510]

@@mattm7798 I assume it's probably a lot better partially due to all the rules cleanups and partially do to Arena coming out showing the vast majority of people what the correct rulings generally are at least the majority of the time. Obviously Magic Online existed long before Arena but Arena was the real breakthrough game and made all the rules very clear.

[@MH-wz1rb]

@tymandude 1 Arena is really good at showcasing layers to intermediate players as well as building intuition about the stack in new players and illustrating the windows and options to take advantage of the stack for all skill levels. Thus made me realize a feature that would be amazing is a rules demo where you can build a board and hand for each player, then play out both sides. Too much work to maintain though

[@alexpeter6207]

I knew a lot of guys, before the tournment starts they already know the moment when the card will be played where they can call the judge to create these awkard situations, it's kind a extra card they have in the sleeve to put pressure on the game. They already know what to say to the judge.

[@rosethepersonperson946]

The Kibler one reminds me of the current Yu-Gi-Oh rule which is that both players are responsible for keeping a legal game state and that if a mandatory effect is missed both players get a PE Minor depending on the scale. I think helps because it stops angle shooting and things of the like

[@LennonMarx420]

That used to be the rule in Magic, too, for the same reason. It was changed to prevent situations like where you had to remind your opponent to kill you, for example, or other "feel bad" moments in the game where you essentially have to play for your opponent.

[@chrismanuel9768]

@@LennonMarx420 If you had played worse the entire way through and you are for all intents dead, BUT if you hide that you know that you're dead you can cheat your way to victory? That feels much worse than reminding your opponent they beat you, and it keeps players fucking honest, which is something the game desperately needs

[@LouisKing995]

@@chrismanuel9768There’s a difference between taking lethal damage and pretending that you haven’t, and your opponent literally not seeing the winning move and you telling them what to do. I would never want to win because my opponent told me what the line was. I should know my own lines of play.

[@deenmohammad385]

@@LouisKing995 it’s a mandatory play though

[@vanesslifeygo]

First story has a Yugioh equivalent. We have many "Black Luster Soldier" retrains. Black Luster Soldier Black Luster Soldier - Envoy of the Beginning Black Luster Soldier - Envoy of the Evening Twilight and a couple more too. A player used a Spell/Trap and declared Black Luster Solider to prevent it from being played in the Duel, but at the time only "Envoy of the Beginning' had any relevance to someone trying to actually win . Opponent played Envoy and everyone cheered. I didn't witness this because I took this from a YugiTuber's video where he read fan submissions. It's important to actually declare the full card name. Someone could have been running either version for fun or filler, or just as a discard for a specific purpose.

[@jaleink2953]

The problem was that pithing needle shouldn't be able to target a card that is not currently in the game. MTG cards that are able to interact with things outside of the game are a very big deal and are strictly worded. So the judge assuming pithing needle is currently interacting with a card that is outside the game is a ridiculous call, he should have made him clarify a legal target or fizzle it as it has not target.

[@TheForeverRanger]

@@jaleink2953 It is a common sense thing. Bob knew and admitted what his opponent meant but chose to shark because his combo was gone. I hate sharks with a passion in card games.

[@a_doggo]

Aw man, this one was great, like a trip down memory lane. Thanks for ensuring that the oldest players are included in these videos; this could've gone the watchmojo direction and been dry, but your taste is excellent and presentation is killer. Thanks buddy.

[@ryanstampke2750]

I cant believe you didnt talk about "Abeyance and Waylay" both PT plays caused rule changes. I was also at the PTLA when Justice started the riot, and will never forget it

[@cousinjimmy2638]

It was before the real tournament and ban list back in 1995, but this is still a good and sneaky move done to make a rule change. Official rules went to 60 card minimum with a max of 4 of any card. That killed the rogue t-bolt mountain deck. I was having a hard time with my deck. I had 38 keepers, so what I did was I stuck 22 ante cards in. Ante cards hadn't been officially banned yet, so I did what the card said and removed ante cards from the deck and played with my 38 card kill deck. It was legal, but impolite, and I took 5th place at the regional. The next week there was a memo adding ante cards to the tournament ban list

[@Knokkelman]

We always used to play with our lands on top, back then, 25 years ago. But boy am I glad that I never played a bigger tournament, remembering all that phases and trigger shenanigans on top of what all the cards your opponent plays do, and still thinking strategically would've killed me (or make me riot :)

[@fjshdf]

I kind of like the backwards battlefield setup, letting your opponent read your cards better.

[@d.j.8059]

I played against Adrian Sullivan and his crew a few times back in the Midwest in the 90s, and I tried to do that at Pre-Releases for the courtesy of my opponents once I knew well enough what the cards in my deck did. I also learned to play with lands in front of creatures. Eventually I switched even before it became an "official" rule because it made more sense...but it was hard.

[@goingrogue2236]

I learned to play with my cards facing my opponent for the same reason, I usually used cards that my net decking opponent's were unfamiliar with, so I just did it as a courtesy. Someone asked me once and I told them that I knew what my cards did, chances are my opponents didn't. I did, however, play with my battlefield in the correct position.

[@weirdperson5675]

At RC Sydney 2022 we had a 45 minute time extension based around the combat ruling. Best part it was Greasefang vs Rakdos Mid.

[@fakeplaystore7991]

Cancer vs AIDS. They should both have been disqualified on the spot.

[@Mio_Takahashi_]

Idk, a lot of these just made me sad and now I’m kinda tearing up. Just like, watching someone get utterly rules lawyered after coming so far. Had to stop the video at the crewing part I feel cheated and I’m not even playing

[@williamdrum9899]

I always felt like competitive magic was a joke because of these scenarios. Went to EDH and never looked back.

[@MissZencefil]

4 to 2nd places are like... SO PETTY, SO SMALL. And ableist. Why I got mad at the judge and Ngyuen is that, it is quite an expected move and Cesar actually does not miss anything. Beginning of Combat is within "Combat" phase. I'm so happy that it is not the case anymore.

[@Goblin749]

I think people who defend the judges may miss a part of the point of having a judge in the first place. If you just needed someone to read from a rulebook you don't need a judge, any literate person can do that. I feel the point of a 'judge' is more about making sure the game is fair and nobody is cheating, not to enforce rules that are clearly silly/broken to the point that wotc end up changing the rule after because of how dumb it was.

[@emphyriohazzl1510]

You missed a few major ones : abeyance which turned out to prevent mana sources activation, forcing wizards to issue the new ruling for mana sources (the one that allowed the wall of boom deck 😅). And also the "yawgmoth's will dark ritual infinite mana" attempt from Emmanuel Vernay for constructed at a french championship, another attempt at using the new mana source rule created after abeyance (it was ruled as not working by the head judge but created a heated debate, as the current wording of rules for mana sources at the time definitely allowed it to work, as the dark ritual was still in the graveyard and not yet out of game when the mana source effect is activated, allowing to cast it again infinitely as nothing could prevent mana sources ativation to be declared at any time) which led to some additional rulings to make it not work.

[@georganatoly6646]

that cavern of souls situation is really interesting, interpreting not declaring a specific color as the player explicitly choosing the colorless option is logically false, really what's happening is a question of if you're allowed to arbitrarily tap permanents that result in no effect, if a player doesn't explicitly state which of the 2 tap abilities are being selected then tapping it is an ambiguous act so either it does nothing and whatever happens to spells put onto the stack that can't be paid for would happen resulting in the counter spell being irrelevant, or if magic prevents invalid plays the player would be required select one of the abilities in order to resolve the ambiguity