Pro Tour Rivals of Ixalan Round 16 (Modern): Luis Salvatto vs. Lucas Esper Berthoud

[@strangemolars]

Rewatching this one after 5 years remembered me I have 1 of my 2 Graffdigger's Cage signed by Salvatto at GP São Paulo as a jest so that would never happen to me as well. He laugh about it and was super chill signing it and we talked a bit about the deck after.

[@Sidewinder_Circa]

"Do I have any chance of winning?" "No"

[@Zarbon000]

17:45. He presented an illegal deck before the game started. Game loss. It was his 2nd warning. Warranted. Not heartbreaking. This is high level Magic.

[@zimoy.701]

tbf correct per the rules doesn't mean not heartbreaking

[@Zarbon000]

@ I disagree with your comment but glad you are watching this! I miss when Wizards really cared about tournaments and high level play. Sure I guess it still exists to a degree, but people don’t follow it, it’s all Commander now. What a time it was! 🙋‍♂️

[@zimoy.701]

@ agree that a lot of otherwise valuable attention has gone to commander (the format that least requires attention because people just do whatever they want anyways in it…) current competitive magic is actually still pretty fun to play, the rcq system works pretty well i(n my area at least); you could try coming back to it :) And yea regarding the game loss we can disagree, ig it’s mostly the fact that it’s a win and in, it’s clearly unintentional, and it’s very close to being reversible, would’ve sucked if it ended up actually deciding the match. I’m not sure whether/by how much the rules were different back in 2017, nowadays it’s generally 3 warnings=game loss, although deck errors are rated a little more seriously like if you have 2 and both are deck errors you get a game loss

[@MisterAssasine]

thank you rhystic studies

[@MrTandtrollet]

The way I read the IPG Salvatto should not have been awarded a game loss if both copies of Graftdigger's Cage were still in the random portion of the library. However this might have been changed after this match was played a couple of years ago: Infraction: Deck Problem Penalty: Warning Upgrade [penalty - to game loss]: If an error resulted in more copies of a main deck card being played than were registered ... and this was discovered after the game had begun, the penalty is a Game Loss unless all copies of the card are still in the random portion of the library.

[@jeremirynkiewicz4913]

I think game loss was the fair call - otherwise, what, do they just let the game continue with an illegal deck?

[@Fanofstuff]

@@jeremirynkiewicz4913 they would swap out 1 Graftdigger's cage for 1 witchbane orb and then shuffle the deck (or just let the whirring invention resolve). the idea is, since both copies of Graftdigger's cage were never seen or played in the game (not revealed, drawn, milled, anything basically),you could swap out the incorrect card (Graftdigger's cage) for the correct card (witchbane orb) and the game would continue as though nothing happened. Salvatto would then have gotten a warning.

[@ecxstatic8155]

@@jeremirynkiewicz4913 its actually correct to just swap the targets since they were in the library and not known till resolving whir as per IPG 3.5 which states what mrtandtrollet said. it would be a warning and the cards would be swapped as per IPG 3.5 game ruling. with that being said he did receive a warning already that game so i guess a game loss wasnt totally wrong but not the correct choice.

[@Zarbon000]

I don’t get it. The Lantern plays 1 Ensnaring Bridge and it’s a Scoop? The Humans deck has no spell SB artifact hate!?

[@thonk7611]

between lantern of insight and codex shredder, you stop your opponent from ever drawing any cards that get out of the ensaring bridge lock

[@Zarbon000]

4:15 Luis cheats and plays 2 lands. Somehow this is a warning and not a game loss. Why even have rules?

[@ecxstatic8155]

LEB is such a great teammate and a true player of the game.

[@JoshyKel]

still not as bad as the Patrick Chapin game loss

[@spikesacademy]

do you have a link :) ?

[@yaboi5954]

@@spikesacademy pro tour dragons of tarkir. He didn’t reveal the card from ajani mentor of hero’s plus 1 to look at the top 4 and reveal a card ability, resulting in a game loss, which caused him to lose the match

[@danielescotece7144]

Chapin played 2 Lands in 1 turn in that game lol

[@jewski6852]

Once that card leaves the top of the deck; it's drawn, Metuchen should have lost his vials

[@zakariasdanujatmiko3351]

wtf, the lantern control so strong

[@marcocirioni3022]

Nice comeback 🙂

[@ZupDrake]

you dont have the complete mainboard on the 1st match. it's an automatic game loss.

[@MrTandtrollet]

No, it's not.

[@alexanderthegreat3424]

@@MrTandtrollet Why not? Shouldn't be the main board on the first game (before the next game where you're allowed to sideboard) be complete as registered (at least 60 cards minimum) for it to be a legally allowed game, otherwise a technical loss if faulted? Im not well versed in MTG comprehensive rules and precendent judge ruling, but a legal/technicalities fanatic like me could prudently assess that these scenario/fault results to an automatic game loss (regardless if fraudulent or honest mistake).

[@MrTandtrollet]

​@@alexanderthegreat3424 I don't recall what this comment was referring too (as it was a long time ago). But the penalty for "deck error" is a "warning" (which upgrades to game loss etc. if you get multiple). There are however upgrades to the penalty depending on circumstance. What's important is that the rules are known and that they are applied the same every time, not what the rules are or anyone "feels they should be". MTG is not chess ("touch-move") it would make the game very annoying to play so rules are a lot more relaxed in some sense.

[@alexanderthegreat3424]

@@MrTandtrollet Hahaha. I appreciate your reply. I understand now. I took effort in googling this one. I'm clarified now that this is not an issue of an 'incomplete' number of mainboard (less than 60 minimum) but a failed de-sideboarding of card/s, where as per my understanding there is a fix. But still if in case of the 'less than 60 cards in library' case and where the missing card is just left in the sideboard or retrievable, there is also a reasonable fix. I did apply strict technicalities (without recourse) here in this MTG fault I saw for the first time (so I did side with judges' game loss ruling on that and this OP comment, previously), but now I consider that this error could have been resolved by fixing it (say allowed to switch the card/s back to the library/sideboard zone) and probably with another penalty that it could not be fetched by Whir of Invention currently casted plus a game warning. But it seems that the judges (somewhat incompetently), quite prematurely assessed an 'advantageous intent' on the faulty player, hence ruled a game loss or just maybe because the error is a featured match and it messes up things, they just ruled a game loss for simplicity sake.

[@MrJason1253]

why would having one in the main deck make any difference what so ever? i could understand giving a game loss over the incorrect deck but only not letting him switch the witchbane in because there is 1 cage in main and side makes literally no sense

[@codycantfocus]

Because if he drew one, you wouldn't know if it would be the sideboarded one or not. It could have been the one sideboarded which could have been drawn and he wouldn't have been able to grab the Witchbane Orb because it's in his hand.

[@Fanofstuff]

@@codycantfocus yes see that would make sense, if either of the graftdigger's cages were revealed at any point in the game. The ruling that you can swap cards and only get a warning if you run 1 copy main and non in side is 2 reasons 1: The card cant have influenced the game in any way 2: you know the specific card that is causing the issue Salvattos graftdiggers cages did not influence the game (as they never even appeared prior to his searching with whirr) also it doesnt matter whiich graftdiggers cage is the culprit since, he is fetching witchbane orb out of his deck (essentially removing the "problematic cage" and he must shuffle his deck afterwards which randomizes where the cage is. This effectively removes any non-cheating arguments since the card is unknown and randomly placed as it wouldve been had the mistake not been made. Now they could argue that Salvatto had searched his deck prior and couldve seen the 2 cages and left everything as is because it gave him an advantage through either using the cage or information, but the cage is terrible in the matchup so that doesnt really work either Idk it seems like a hasty judges call, where you can see the logic is working in contrast to the rules and alot of this is speculation since we dont hear the details of why he got the gameloss so Who the fuck knows lmao

[@itsthekid9815]

@@Fanofstuff it doesn't matter if it effects the game. It was against the rules. The player in question had a deck that was not the deck they submitted. That is against the rules. Cheating is cheating regardless of outcome and intent. That's why you have to give out the punishments. For every instants it's not malicious we will have people who don't care about the rules.

[@jofac22]

37:07 look at the clock wtf

[@alexhill2495]

I imagine they're just giving them back the time from the ruling about game 1.

[@t.e.3535]

What the actual fuck is this round 😅

[@Karthedis]

Pyxis of Pandemonium says: "Each player exiles the top card of his or her library face down." and not face up.

[@Drecon84]

To be fair, the cards already were revealed. So while they should be face down, the intent of the card is that hidden information remains hidden. Since the information is already revealed, it doesn't change much.

[@Karthedis]

Yeah, that`s true, but a rule is a rule.^^

[@MaB1235813]

Drecon84 it is only relevant when the opponent has processors or exile interaction so I think this is fine.

[@Karthedis]

It`s a rule, it has to be relevant no matter what.

[@voidwalker8754]

Oof...so many mistakes

[@alexanderthegreat3424]

The fact that these clearly happened and are being pointed out on screen, with assessment from the judge educates us viewers anyways. Well, still weird though to happen this many in a single featured match round.

[@solomonaveyard7556]

Big fat greasy nugs

[@matthiaslajolo5324]

Skripted....

[@alvarofblanco]

This is what I hate about some "pros". They are in the freaking pro tour. THEY ARE PROS! They should know what the penalties are and they are buu buuu my vial buuu buuuuuh my Witchbane orb.

[@voidwalker8754]

Everyone makes mistakes

[@trumpetperson11]

Everyone makes mistakes ... it wasn't even a gameplay mistake. That is like insulting a doctor's practice/business because he forgot to turn off the lights the night before.

[@THE_BASED_GOD]

5 year old comment but this is fucking stupid lmao. The MTG rulebook is a 292 page PDF. Not to mention errors like these rarely, RARELY happen. I guarantee you pros in professional sports with several million dollar contracts also dont know the penalties for rare rule breaks. 0 IQ comment.