Is playing like that being cheap?

Guest · Posted: Fri May 12, 2006 11:02 am Post subject:

why did that last msg show up as guest?
this is coldbeer

Guest · Posted: Fri May 12, 2006 12:04 pm Post subject:

wow, u guys rule!

Craze · Joined: 30 Jan 2005 Posts: 5378 Location: Indiana, U

omg enough guests!!!!!

Banditking87 · Joined: 02 Dec 2005 Posts: 110

wow he was wrong imo, if he tapped mana for a consume spirit, he prolly intended to use it all, the fact that he didn't cast something else afterwards besides the same spell would imply that he was using that to be dick and he deserves to be kicked in the crotch, c'mon it's not that big a deal.

Viperlock · Joined: 04 Mar 2005 Posts: 2

I have no idea why everyone is so quick to judge this without having all of the information. My opponent had just tapped out to Transmute and then play Heartbeat without being able to go off. He then laid an Island and says go.

I had six lands in play, and it was pretty obvious that he held a counter. I held two Consume Spirits and realized that I was casting both of them since one would almost certainly be countered. Gaining life is always important against heartbeat as makes it more difficult for them to go off.

I tapped and added all of my mana into my mana pool. I played the first Consume Spirit but before I could calculate how much of the mana I would need for the second, he slaps down Remand and draws a card.

I have no problem with announcing and understand completely how the timing works, but his abrupt Remand-Draw-Discard just completely threw me. I was wondering if he even knew what he had countered. I tried to explain to him that I was not finished announcing the spell.

At that point it became a teaching example. Casual games are good for this sort of thing. I realized I was not going to convince my opponent that I was not going all in. I chose instead to emphasize how important it was to allow the spell to actually be played before countering, so I told him that X was zero.

The best thing to do would have been to take back the Remand and have us each replay the sequence, but since he had already drawn a card I don't think it came up as a possibility.

Instead, he continued to argue his point that I was being cheap, instead of ever considering the idea that he may have acted too fast. Waiting for the X value before you respond is not a bad thing. Sometimes your opponent has other things to do with the mana in his pool...

Lackeos · Joined: 10 Oct 2004 Posts: 236

Guest · Posted: Fri May 12, 2006 2:25 pm Post subject: Re: Consume for zero

Guest · Posted: Fri May 12, 2006 2:55 pm Post subject:

In a casual game, I would be very upset by an opponent that made that play. It can reasonably be assumed that someone who taps out and plays an X spell is choosing to put all their mana into the X.

I would want to see logs of how quickly the Remand came down. You don't have to ask your opponent what the value of X is, they have to say it when they're announcing the spell. If he said nothing, then he quite obviously wanted to put all of his mana into it. If you Remanded extremely quickly, before he could say anything, then it may be questionable, but so long as you waited anytime at all (like, 5 seconds), he is most certainly in the wrong here.

Guest · Posted: Fri May 12, 2006 2:57 pm Post subject:

Everyone who's ripping Viperlock needs to think for a second first. He's not just some total random. He makes the netdraft patches, and he's a pretty accomplished player. Go ahead and bash him, but he knows what he's talking about more than you do.

xerocat · Joined: 06 Oct 2005 Posts: 12

Wildcard is correct here. You announce the spell and pay all costs including X before passing priority. It's the "consume spirit" player's job to go through the proper motions which includes announcing the value of X. Technically, yes he could just say "I didn't go through the proper motions and Consume was for 0, sorry I forgot to tell you." Again though, technically, the consume player did not follow correct procedure and I would judge this according to the level (mini, trial, master) with the benefit of the doubt going to the Remand player. This is not actually cheating, but intentionally misrepresenting game state, actions, cards, value's etc. is looked upon in the same light imo and often in the DCI's.

Luckily, this was just a random game and didn't matter at all. Just remember it's the opponents job to fulfill all requirements on his own spells, including announcing it correctly and not misrepresenting information.

xerocat · Joined: 06 Oct 2005 Posts: 12

This would actually be a tough ruling if the Remand was played so fast he didn't have a chance to announce the value of X. I can understand both sides of the story and in a low "rel" (if you will) level tourney like a mini, I would just back the game up as Viper suggested. This is almost certainly a procedural error on one of the players, and logs would be required in a higher "rel" tourney to decide. The point is moot though as this game didn't matter.

For those reading, ust know that you cannot try to decieve your opponent by misrepresenting information on one side, and on the other, if your opponent casts an X spell, you need to give him enough time to tell you what X is before responding. He has to pass priority before you can respond and he can't pass priority until he announces the value of X. Give him a chance to. I would consider "k?" passing priority with all mana spent on X. The correct ruling all depends on the logs.

Hopefully reading this will help others and prevent something like this from happening in actual tourneys.

(even though it won't)

~Cat

Lackeos · Joined: 10 Oct 2004 Posts: 236

If I were a judge, I'd probably back-up the game state to the point where Viperlock plays Consume Spirit for 0, then be like "k, now Tomtom has priority," and Tomtom would be like "k, it resolves, I take 0." Then be like "k, the stack empties. Viperlock, your hella gay Consume Spirit for 0 resolves. enjoy."

I could've sworn there were supposed to be penalties for rules lawyering. But my memory of the existence of that rule is fuzzy.

Strovil · Joined: 11 Mar 2005 Posts: 567

It is unsportsmanlike conduct to rules lawyer.

Laplie · League Staff Joined: 31 Aug 2004 Posts: 547

Atihos · Guest

Laplie Wrote: