[Community Discussion]: Mind games
General forum
Posted on Jan. 19, 2014, 3:47 p.m. by Epochalyptik
There was a recent conversation about whether using psychological tricks during a game is a "legitimate" way to play.
Example 1
Urza has a few Forest
s, some nonbasics, and a Dryad Arbor
. He splays the Dryad Arbor
with the other lands. We'll assume the name is readable, and the lands aren't stacked in a vertical or almost-vertical pile such that it's impossible to tell what the cards are. From a rules perspective, the cards are all identifiable, and nothing is being concealed.
Example 2
Urza plays a deck comprised of all foil Russian cards. According to the rules, the cards are still all identifiable, and any player may ask for the Oracle text of a card in a public zone. Above FNM level, Urza is not required to provide an answer. At all levels, any answer Urza does provide must be truthful and not misleading. If Urza does not provide the information (assuming Competitive REL or higher), his opponent is welcome to look the Oracle text up using a mutually-visible electronic device, and he is also welcome to request Oracle text from a judge.
In each example, assume Urza is following the rules. He is not concealing information, misinforming his opponent, or cheating. It is each player's responsibility to read the game state for himself or herself.
Now for the question: is this kind of play "acceptable," or is it illegitimate? Does the "acceptability" change depending on the level of competition?
I understand this is a volatile topic for some players, so please keep this CD as civil as all of our past ones have been,
Triforce-Finder says... #2
It accidentally got lost as I streamlined my post, but answer 1 was meant to include that every combination of types counts as different than each of the types it contains. I have stated it several posts ago, but will say it again: Different types always trump common types.
As for your critics to answer two: What do you consider a game-affecting difference in capabilities? I provided an example, the difference of capabilities that comes with a card (potentially) being a creature or not. To estimate magnitude, an example is a suitable method.
On your critics on answer three: You're skipping the empty line that separates the answer from the next paragraph. Again: Those are there for a reason. If you ignore them, it's no wonder you're mixing up the argumentation for similar groups and non-similar groups.
As for the non-similar groups and the rules that define them: All those comprehensive rules already exist and define terms that express a certain kind of rules-based relation. the terms defined are those in brackets behind the mechanics mentioned. The rules for soulbond define the (paired) relation, for example.
The funny thing is, although you say it's too much trouble for DCI to do it, you're expecting me to come up with a fully worked out solution right away, just to disprove your claim that it's not possible. I am not proposing a ready-to-use solution as you stated a few posts ago, but rather was suggesting a possible approach towards finding that solution.
Also, pointing out flaws is easy. You're deconstructing something and can even claim to be constructive. Instead of pointing at holes, why not fix them? Why not be really constructive and suggest a suitable approach to solving the problem yourself?
January 20, 2014 11:20 p.m.
NobodyPicksBulbasaur says... #3
It could be argued that intentionally making the board state difficult to read is, in fact, a violation of maintaining a clear and legal board state. The board is legal insofar as no permanents are hidden or completely obscured, but it should be fairly simple for a judge to rule that a board state has been rendered unclear.
In the case of "checkering" your permanents in order to make them difficult to read as a whole, it could easily be argued that the board state is unclear. All free information is present and accounted for, but the board has been manipulated in such a way as to impede the calculation of derived information. Such a thing could be addressed in the rules.
It would still be subjective, but adding something to the extent of "No player may arrange the permanents on his/her board in such a way as to impede the calculation of derived information" could be added without requiring extensive definition. Any such call would be at the discretion of a judge, as opposed to the discretion of a definition.
January 20, 2014 11:21 p.m.
The problem is one of persecuting the innocent. Having to take my shoes off to go through every single airport security checkpoint forever because one guy, once, FAILED to get a bomb onto a plane in his shoe really annoys me. Likewise, running the risk of a game loss because I put a recently played swamp on top of my Creeping Tar Pit when I have no intention of trying to hide it to trick someone into swinging into me.
Bogging down the physical logistics of the game, even by just formalising a process virtually everybody already uses (As I said, until this thread, I've seen a few artfully concealed Elvish Mystic s and Dryad Arbor s, but 100% of people marking PW loyalty as an integer with a die, and no more than a couple foreign printings of very well-known staple cards) seems like a surefire way to just turn people off the game. The rules are already difficult enough to feel you comprehend without also making sure you're laying out every single card correctly.
The ideal solution is to find a way (impossible I'm sure) to convince the people obfuscating and misdirecting on purpose that they are displaying poor sportsmanship, and try to convince them to stop. But those people, by the very nature that makes them want to use all foil all russian cards to confuse you, or keep the bare minimum edge of the Dryad Arbor visible behind a stack of forests to chump block unexpectedly with a combat trick, are the kind of people who will just say "Lol mad because bad" or tell you that they aren't breaking any rules in the same way that your annoying little brother is "not touching you" on a car ride.
I hate it when the optimal solution becomes legislation over education, but you can't educate somebody about what they are doing being wrong, if they already know exactly what they are doing, on purpose, because they know they can gain advantage by it.
January 20, 2014 11:27 p.m.
NobodyPicksBulbasaur says... #5
@Triforce-Finder, some of your arguments are unclear. Epoch isn't trying to shred your arguments so much as he's trying to figure out exactly what you're saying so that he may fully understand you. I feel as if some of your posts are missing information that you are assuming to be obvious. It may be beneficial to slow your arguments down and make sure you say everything you're thinking, because sometimes bits and pieces get lost along the way if they're not made explicitly clear.
January 20, 2014 11:29 p.m.
@NobodyPicksBulbasaur The issue I have with your "impeding the ability to calculate derived information" which is, albiet a minor issue is this: Auras and equipment.
At present, with cards the way they are now, it is currently impossible for all public information about an aura or equipment to be visible at the same time the relationship with the enchanted or equipped permanent.
IE: If you tuck an aura behind a creature so the name is visible, you are obscuring the rules text. If you tuck the aura behind the creature so the rules text of the aura sticks out the bottom (the other way I've seen it done) you're obscuring the name. In either case, for a full accounting of all public and derived information, you're having to ask them to move their cards around.
Any time somebody is playing with enchantments or auras, I will pause the game to manually calculate and get my opponent's agreement on the calculation of the power, toughness and relevant abilities of both of our creatures at the start of the combat phase just to make sure everything is understood.
It's a very minor sort of issue, but one that would make it so implementing your rule exactly as written problematic.
January 20, 2014 11:33 p.m.
NobodyPicksBulbasaur says... #7
To be clear, for post #2 on this page, any such board state violation would have to display a clear intent to misrepresent the board state via unconventional sorting methods. Simply having a Dryad Arbor in a stack of basic lands would not constitute misconduct. Checkering your permanents because you feel like making life harder that day would.
January 20, 2014 11:33 p.m.
So how do you draw that line? Judge interpretation I suppose.
This is the reason why I don't think this can be fixed with more rules. Ameliorated yes, but not fixed. Because what would actually be needed to -fix- the problem is introspective access into the mind of the player, which is impossible.
When we say "If you're doing it because you think it's neat, it's fine, but if you're doing it to be a dick, it's not fine" the issue becomes a way to figure out which is which, which is of course, impossible.
January 20, 2014 11:36 p.m.
NobodyPicksBulbasaur says... #9
@Devonin, I see your point. It shouldn't be too difficult, however, to come up with a similarly written rule that refers only to deliberate impeding of such calculations. As written above, it would take a fairly egregious offense for a judge to take action.
January 20, 2014 11:37 p.m.
NobodyPicksBulbasaur says... #10
It would be possible for the players themselves to draw that line. If a player feels that the board is being intentionally manipulated, then they are free to ask a judge to review the situation. At that time the judge could make a ruling and be on his/her way. It's not a perfect solution, but it's one that won't require constant vigilance by the judges for a rule that is unlikely to be broken.
January 20, 2014 11:40 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #11
@Triforce-Finder, post 6:1
An example can function as an indicator of principle or precedent, but one example obviously does not define all principles or precedents, nor does it define limits for any principles or precedents. You're trying to define a quantifiable distinction between two "game-affecting capabilities," so you need to actually propose some definition. An example is a start, sure, but it does nothing to clarify your argument without a corresponding definition, especially if the example contradicts your previous point.
Regarding your third point, the two paragraphs I addressed summarily in my last reply to you are logically linked. If you wanted them treated separately, then they should be separated in a meaningful way. All of my responses to your points were multi-paragraph in nature. Therefore, I took the time to separate my points from one another in an obvious manner. Again, this is a problem with clarity. Beyond that, what good is your argument if it cannot be addressed as a cohesive position?
To your fourth paragraph: your argument is, again, irrelevant in the situation in which you're trying to apply it. Yes, abilities all have rules text that define them and explain their function. But how is that relevant? It has nothing whatsoever to do with grouping, at least as far as you describe. Are we to suppose from your statement that a group may only contain cards that have exactly the same rules text? There are no existing, comprehensive rules regarding grouping. Rules text certainly doesn't serve that purpose. I'm confused as to why you're conflating the two.
I don't expect you to have a complete, ready-to-implement set of rules. I expect you to have some cohesive and thought-out foundation for those rules. That's not a tall order. It's tantamount to expecting you to have thought about what your position is, and what it's trying to accomplish.
Deconstructing your "solution" is, in fact, constructive because it indicates the flaws so you can fix them. Or at least so you can think about them. Again, I don't know everything you're thinking. I know what you tell me. Therefore, all I can do is point to the shortcomings of your proposed solution with the hopes that you will think about them and further develop your position.
I don't posit my own solution because I don't see this scenario as a problem. I stated that back at the beginning of the debate. I'm not going to solve something I don't view as a problem. That much should have been indicated by my repeated use of quotation marks while discussing "problem" and "solution." You're being unnecessarily combative, and I can only assume it's because you have some notion that I want to prove you wrong about everything. Thus far, you've done a good deal of rhetorical "analysis" in an attempt to prove that I'm misunderstanding or misrepresenting your argument, but you have, until recently, disregarded those misunderstandings and my requests for clarification. Those actions do nothing to further the argument itself. They only serve to criticize others.
My concurrence with Devonin in post 5:20 was an admission that adding small, surgically precise rules to improve board clarity would shift the responsibility of interpretation away from the judges, and would replace individual discretion with a concrete set of procedures that handle extreme cases for which there is no currently defined policy.
@NobodyPicksBulbasaur, post 6:2
Again, this is a situation for which there are currently no defined policies. Everything is subjective when it comes to interpretation of tangentially-related or unspecific rules. Subjectivity is precisely what we're trying to avoid because it only muddles the mixture. It doesn't actually help anyone solve anything in a meaningful way.
@Devonin: The issue, then, lies with the players (as many of us, you included, seemed to agree upon earlier on in the discussion). The simple fact is that you can't dissuade all unsportsmanlike conduct simply by educating people that it's unsportsmanlike. The best we can do is enact rules to handle the extreme cases, then rely on a social contract between players to handle the rest.
January 21, 2014 12:03 a.m.
Epochalyptik says... #12
@NobodyPicksBulbasaur: The best solution would not deal at all with player intent because player intent is, at best, a vicious puzzle. Intent is easy to misconstrue or assume. That's why rules, whenever possible and appropriate, stick to the facts and go from there.
January 21, 2014 12:07 a.m.
NobodyPicksBulbasaur says... #13
Fair enough, but lack of clarity doesn't need intent to be rectified. If a player feels that the board is represented in such a way as to make obtaining derived information needlessly hard, there should be a system in place to remedy the issue. Games should be won and lost through player skill, not the ability of either player to solve spacial relation puzzles.
January 21, 2014 12:27 a.m.
Epochalyptik says... #14
@NobodyPicksBulbasaur: Some would argue that the ability to read the board properly is a skill in itself.
The current system for remedying this issue is simply asking your opponent to clarify the board state, or asking to read the cards/Oracle text. That's exactly the system that needs to be in place.
January 21, 2014 12:57 a.m.
NobodyPicksBulbasaur says... #15
I would agree that the current system works adequately in most situations.
What happens under the current system if the opponent refuses to clarify the board state? Are there situations in which a judge can intervene, or does the letter of the law prevail? There have been lengthy conversations on what could be done from a rules perspective. Do you know what currently happens from a practical perspective?
January 21, 2014 1:17 a.m.
MonsterFinder221 says... #16
It's somewhat legit. I mean, it's not illegal to confuse your opponent or mislead them into making wrong moves. (As long as you are following the rules, then it's okay.)
January 21, 2014 5:24 a.m.
aeonstoremyliver says... #17
This is a reaaaallly long thread that I read the first page of and skimmed through the last page of. So I'll merely give my thoughts on the original post, but not to discredit the conversation.
Example #1: Dryad Arbor is a land that also counts as a creature. It's my opponent's responsibility to read my board.
Example #2: I took four years of Latin in high school and am semi fluent in Spanish. If I don't know what the card does, especially in Eternal formats, I'm gonna ask.
Is this legitimate and acceptable? Yes and no to a certain extent. If my opponent is playing with all foreign cards, say German, and he/she is he German? In that instance, well of course. Is his primary language English and has deliberately run foreign language cards to cause confusion? Dick move dude. Dick move. Acceptable by the rules, yes. Am I going to call his bullshit and ask for an oracle on every card he plays and maybe go to time and then a draw because of it? Hellz freaking yeah.
Any game beyond the kitchen table is competitive. If my DCI number is involved and I'm sitting across from my best friend (which has happened), no holds barred. Triggers, draws, board states, etc. are the player's responsibility. The circles that I play in thankfully don't do petty crap like run all foreign cards. We may have a few, but at least we're courteous enough to let the other player know what it is and what it does. Even down to rarity and set...
January 21, 2014 6:10 a.m.
Triforce-Finder says... #18
The questions and their answers were separated by a line break, each of them in one paragraph separated by an empty line. I don't have to adapt your way of formatting as long as there is a noticable separation method. It's clearly visible, and you could have noticed it.
...Does that argument sound familiar? It's the same that people use to justify deceptive grouping. I'll try to make it easier for you not to mix things up, then, and use more distinctive separators.
There are two kinds of groups: Those with similar members and those with different members. For each of these two kinds of groups, a certain kind of rule is necessary:
- For similar-membered groups, a rule that prevents their abuse to camouflage cards in the group. The first step to do this would be to state that different card types are not allowed in groups of similar cards. Before you shoot: The necessity of a second step is no reason to refuse the first.
- For different-membered groups, a rule that prevents them from being formed to look like similar-membered groups. Since different-membered groups are necessary to indicate rules-based relations between cards (attached auras etc), they can't be forbidden. They can however be limited so that they are only allowed to be used if it's for the sake of displaying a rules-based relation.
Is that understandable? I know it can be hard to understand me sometimes because english is not my primary language and I might word things differently than you would expect.
January 21, 2014 7:55 a.m.
It's an acceptable way to play, but when I'm playing at an event and I don't understand what's going on I do usually ask my opponent if he would mind in moving his cards around so that I can see them better. Just a friendly request. I suppose they're free to refuse but then they're hindering the progress of the game. Most people are happy enough to move things around so you can read properly. I believe you can also ask to touch cards? This method obviously fails if 'Urza' is a complete ass.
January 21, 2014 8:14 a.m.
Gidgetimer says... #20
There is still the problem of what types matter when creating a "group". Is it all types, subtypes, and super types? Are we going to include the English equivalent name of the card? Are token decks allowed to put all tokens into a "group" and thereby "hide" a 5/5 Wurn with the 1/1 Sapporlings?
As bad as the simple guidance that players are responsible to maintain a clear board state is, I see no other recourse. Trying to legislate what criteria is to be used to have cards touching one another would be a rules nightmare in a game that already is more complex than most take the time to learn. Maybe stricter enforcement of the already present rule compelling maintenance of a clear board state is all that is needed at the tournament level; and shunning of players deliberately obfuscating their board state at the social level of play. Clear guidance on what constitutes a "clear board state" may even help. Maybe something along the lines of "Board state should be sufficiently clear that a knowledgeable outside observer can assess each player's state in less than 10 seconds."
January 21, 2014 8:19 a.m.
Triforce-Finder says... #21
Yeah, I tend to skip partial information that is inherent to the nature of the topic sometimes. When I talk about a bright blue sky, for example, I don't explain that the sky isn't bright blue at night. I simply assume that the fact is known.
I also see the different handling of similar-membered groups and different-membered groups as logical conclusion to their difference, a difference that is inherent to their nature.
Anyone who experiences that I'm not slowing down can take it as a compliment. Slowing down implies the other person being slower, so I'll sometimes forget about it when I deem someone to be able to keep up with me.
btw, I did pick bulbasaur ;)
January 21, 2014 8:28 a.m.
Gidgetimer says... #22
Triforce-Finder: I'm pretty sure what NobodyPicksBulbasaur was talking about wasn't about simplifying your statements. You are making logical leaps that are in no way explained and assuming that phrases such as "like traits" and "unlike traits" are going to be interpreted in the way you interpret them and no other way. I am guilty of doing the same sometimes but I will try to better explain myself when it is brought to my attention that I am doing it. What is a bit offensive though is condescending to those trying to have a discussion and asking that you clarify your statements so that the discussion can move on with you as an integral part of it.
Things along the line of "similar-membered groups" have no current definition and so you need to fully explain what you mean by it or risk being misunderstood through no fault of the reader's. You go on to say that "different card types are not allowed in groups of similar cards." OK that's cool does that mean that under this new rule since "groups" are now a thing I can put every elf in a combo elf deck in a "group". < sarcasm >That would be awesome. Make it harder for my opponent to tell the Priest of Titania
from the Joraga Warcaller
. I'm all for it because I am a devious and underhanded asshole. < /sarcasm >
I have been trying to ask questions to get clarification in a way such that you didn't feel that people were singling you out, and in a way to make this an open discussion rather than a series of PMs between people who are unwilling to interact with anyone else. However it seems that people don't respond to anything except being specificaly tagged in the format of @NAME so:
@Triforce-Finder
@Every member of the TappedOut community
@Everyone who isn't a member of the TappedOut community but who would like to weigh in on this
@BarackObama
There is still the problem of what types matter when creating a "group".
Is it all types, subtypes, and supertypes?
Are we going to include the English equivalent name of the card?
Are token decks allowed to put all tokens into a "group" and thereby "hide" a 5/5 Wurn with the 1/1 Sapporlings?
As bad as the simple guidance that players are responsible to maintain a clear board state is, I see no other recourse. Trying to legislate what criteria is to be used to have cards touching one another would be a rules nightmare in a game that already is more complex than most take the time to learn. Maybe stricter enforcement of the already present rule compelling maintenance of a clear board state is all that is needed at the tournament level; and shunning of players deliberately obfuscating their board state at the social level of play. Clear guidance on what constitutes a "clear board state" may even help. Maybe something along the lines of "Board state should be sufficiently clear that a knowledgeable outside observer can assess each player's state in less than 10 seconds."
January 21, 2014 9:34 a.m.
Triforce-Finder says... #23
I'm not being more condescending than some other people here, including you. Different- membered groups are groups with different members. If you are not sure about the definition of a term I use and it is not redefined by a rule, use the definition as by the dictionary. As for what groups to use, show some patience. I'm not living for the sole purpose of this discussion and will take the freedom to respond without haste. Now, following is the post that I was writing as you posted your last one and could have posted earlier, but chose to add this paragraph because you're consescending me...
Cards can be differenciated by card type. By card type, I mean card type, not necessarily including super type or subtype. The card typemhas the heaviest impact on the capaTokens on the other hand are a bit more tricky, since many players don't use token cards to represent them. Tokens should only be allowed to be grouped if each single token is identifiable without frequent questions.
Your example is far beyond grouping if I understood it right. If you put a die on the field to induce an amount of tokens with mixed attributes, you are not making the board state visible, aka cheating. If you use one die per token and move them together, then you have to make it clearly visible what each die means, for example by setting each of the dice to the creature's respective power/toughness.
I use different methods depending on applicability, so I make sure to explain clearly what a die is representing, and my opponents usually don't have to ask frequently what this or that means. Why? If I play a token deck, I represent tokens in a way that applies to all tokens used in this game and makes them distinguishable merely by looking at them if you apply the explained way of reading. I explain the meaning of dice and orientation as soon as I put the first token on the field, in casual games even before starting the game. The important thing is that the ordering applys to each token and that way allows to identify a token by seeing it.
As a Pen 'n' Paper player, I've accumulated lots of different kinds of dice over time. So one method I like to use is a tensided die for each token, showing power/toughness. Those have numbers instead of eyes, and that makes it possible to tap them! If there are different types of tokens with the same p/t, I keep them in groups next to the card that produced them or a token card to represent their type.
January 21, 2014 9:52 a.m.
Triforce-Finder says... #24
Well, how about this basic idea: Creatures may not overlap and Creature cards may not be grouped within non-creature Cards except to display a connection between those cards. As far as this discussion goes, it's mainly about cards being clearly identifiable as creature.
Now that I've read your example on elves closely, there is no rule to prevent that at the moment, or is there? Why aren't some douchebag players doing it already, I wonder.
January 21, 2014 10:07 a.m.
Triforce-Finder says... #25
Aaaand now there's a friggin typo in post 7:2, in the first paragraph after the line. That's what happens when I allow myself to be hurried.
The passgage is supposed to read: "...The card type has the heaviest impact on the capacities of a card. Tokens on the other hand are a bit more tricky, since many players don't use token cards to represent them..."
January 21, 2014 10:20 a.m.
Gidgetimer says... #26
I was using tokens as an example since they are the things that vary the most widely in a normal game. I retract the token question since as you stated most people don't use the actual token cards I was thinking of as I asked. It still leaves the problem that Worldspine Wurm
could legitimately be in a "group" of 10 with 4 Elvish Mystic
, 4 Birds of Paradise
, and a Llanowar Elves
. I don't see how creating a new arbitrary system of using "groups" is going to make a difference since the players who want to obscure the board state are now going to have justification of doing more tricky things. As I said I don't think new rules are the solution to people playing in this manner. More strict enforcement of current rules is what is needed.
Before going into use the dictionary definition of new phrases maybe the definition of what the words in those phrases means should be checked. For 2 full pages we had no guidance on what could and couldn't be in a "similar-member group" and so were left to a dictionary definition.
Similar: 1. resembling without being identical.
So Dryad Arbor
by this definition is similar to a Forest
. It is close but isn't identical.
People need to realize that in any discussion the people you are talking to do not think in the same manner as you. It may be difference in experience due to age, class, or life experience. It may be difference in thought structure because of a different native language (yes native language shapes your thought pattern). It may even be that, as I heard a PhD with Aspergers on a recent NPR broadcast explain, most people think in words but people with even very mild autism will often think in images and feelings instead.
Triforce-Finder: I am sorry if what I said in my previous post came across as condescending but I tire of people thinking that their exact thought process is the only logical one and they do not need to support their argument because it is "common sense". You would be surprised the difference 20 years in age, or 200 miles in geographic area make in the thought process of people of comparable intelligence.
January 21, 2014 10:35 a.m.
Gidgetimer says... #27
OK sorry I was typing a dissertation and missed the previous 2 posts. The rule it falls under is keeping a clearly identifiable board state. Things are not supposed to ever be stacked unless they are sowing a rules connection. Lands are allowed to be in most instances because otherwise it would take up too much room. Some people will also stack cards that are functionally identical.
I think the problem coming into play is that from the first post I interpret "splaying" to mean there is some overlap but each card can clearly be identified. It isn't much different than having the land only lands splayed and the Arbor immediately beside them but with a 1mm gap allowing it to be completely seen. The detractors seem to think that they are in a column such that ONLY the name is readable and the Arbor is somewhere in the middle. The second IMO wouldn't be indicating a clear board state and so should be given a warning at a tournament. I do however feel that if they are splayed and each one is easily identifiable there is nothing wrong with it since the Arbor is a land.
January 21, 2014 10:46 a.m.
Triforce-Finder says... #28
It's probably more like a distance of ten to fifteen thousand miles, at least between users in the states and me sitting here in europe. ;)
But I see where you are coming from.
I hope you understand that the constant request of more and more details is just as often used break the train of thought, to trap someone in contradictions, or to distract from the subject as often as it is used to further communication and understanding, and I can't see what intentions are fueling people's actions. One thing I don't take is when someone claims my statement to be wrong and not to understand it at the same time.
I don't want to appear condescending either, but sometimes it just happens. It's hard not to appear condescending when discussing completely different points of view, and nobody understands the other due to whatever differences in language or culture there might be. Actually, explaining in too much detail is a surefire way to appear condescending. I apologize for any offense i have accidentally caused.
With that said, what do you think about "creatures may not overlap each other"? Or would it be better to formulate it as "creatures may not be overlapped by any other card"? (that's not handling groups that don't use overlap, but does handle those that do.)
January 21, 2014 11:04 a.m.
I have been following this conversation, and I believe that trying to make the game state hard to read on purpose is something that should have its limits.
January 21, 2014 11:13 a.m.
Triforce-Finder says... #30
Maybe I'll just boss people around and set some definitions for reference in this thread...
- Vertical Stack: A stack of overlapping cards showing only the names or the Names and a small part of the artwork. Also applies to overlapping with a slight horizontal offset if the text in the textbox isn't completely visible.
- Rows and Columns: Applies to cards closely lined up horizontally or vertically without overlap that hides informative parts of the cards at least partially. Space left for tapping is not counted if neighboured cards can't be tapped without creating an overlap.
- Crowd: Applies to cards moved close together without an inner ordering, but set aside from other cards by average distance.
January 21, 2014 11:23 a.m.
NobodyPicksBulbasaur says... #31
A non-overlapping board would make the game too large in a number of situations. Legacy combo elves, for example, can have upwards of a dozen creatures on the field at any one time. If each of these creatures takes up the space of an entire card then the board will be confusing regardless of how they're arranged. Grouping of permanents isn't the issue. Rather, deliberately grouping permanents like a jerkbag is the issue.
I think the main issue with your proposal is that it inconveniences every player and not just the ones choosing to be terrible people. There's good intent in what you're rooting for, but I think the feasibility of implementation just isn't there.
January 21, 2014 11:23 a.m.
Triforce-Finder says... #32
Personally, I don't object to placing creatures in a vertical stack to preserve space if they are identical by name and not connected to other cards like auras or have counters on them.
Every rule is inconvenient to a certain extent, even if it's only because it has to be learned. But if we find a rule that poses less inconvenience than douchebag players, i would call it useful. After all, it's meant to protect exactly those players that decide not to be douchebags.
January 21, 2014 11:39 a.m.
Gidgetimer says... #33
The problem with using wording such as "creatures may not overlap other cards" is that when there is a rules reason for them to overlap there would have to be an exception, and if something does not hold true for all cases it becomes open to interpretation if an exception applied or not. This leaves you in no better state than the Tournament Rules already specifying that the board state be be kept clear. Maybe people should start making a fuss about clear board states and have judges make rulings. It would be a pain in the ass for a little while but it wouldn't be nearly as bad as trying to implement new rules.
I guess the problem of unclear board states comes down to a problem that most governments face. One that I personally think most governments get wrong. When faced with an issue is it better to make new rules farther complicating what is and is not allowed, or is it better to work on better enforcement of current rules clarifying what is and is not acceptable? I am firmly on the side of better enforcement of standing rules.
January 21, 2014 11:46 a.m.
Triforce-Finder says... #34
Sorry, forgot to tag you in my last post.
"creatures may not be overlapped" means they can overlap other cards, but always have to be on top. It would still be possible to put auras or imprinted cards under them.
The problem about enforcing rules is that most people, including me, prefer to have strict and unmisunderstandable guidelines on what is allowed and what not, so they can avoid commiting a violation of the rule or defend themselves when accused. However, there are always cases where the letter of the rule can't cover something that common sense can easily comprehend, and those have to be taken care of too, even if that means leaving a lot of freedom to the judge in deciding what is a violation and what isn't.
There's something remotely similar in court: The Jury. Even where evidence is too sparse to prove the guilt (maybe due to all witnesses succumbing to different unrelated accidents), or evidence seems to prove guilt (but is probably faked), the jury can still decide to make a decision that contradicts the evidence, if I got that right.
January 21, 2014 12:21 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #35
@Triforce-Finder: You're still focusing on semantics as your first means of "refuting" my points. If your argument cannot be interpreted as the sum of its parts, then what good is it as an argument?
Regarding your points in post 6:17, I still don't see the necessity. Now we're dictating to players a complicated system of card arrangement.
What happens if you have a group of Forest s and a Dryad Arbor . They all share a card type and a subtype, but the Dryad Arbor is also a Creature - Dryad. Does Dryad Arbor get excluded because it has additional types? To what extent does this rule apply? Is it absolute in its wording? That is, can groups only consist of cards with identical type lines?
Post 6:19
Gidgetimer reiterates my point by saying that a strict system of rules and definitions just to govern card positioning is not only unnecessary, it's overcomplicated.
Post 7:1 and 7:2
@Triforce-Finder: You are being condescending by sticking to this mentality that others (or at least that I) am out to destroy your argument. We're here to have a conversation, not to tell you you're wrong regardless of what you say or how you say it. Clearly, you have a position on the issue. We're trying to tell you that you need to better tell us what that position is. We can't guess what you mean because that leads to further confusion.
For example, you use terms, but you don't define them. When we have to assume the meanings of those terms (based either on their existing rules meanings or on context clues within your posts), we lose some of your intent.
Discussion is about explaining your point so others can comment on it. Much of this conversation has, thus far, been us asking you to explain further what you mean. We get a little piece each time we ask, but that's not enough to put the whole image together. We have to keep asking because you don't tell us enough each time. It shouldn't be assumed that we have to have this understanding or that definition. You should tell us that. Make it clear the first time rather than explaining half your argument and jumping on anyone who tries to piece together the rest.
Furthermore, it is not within your rights to belittle other members. Nobody here demanded that you respond immediately. You're being unnecessarily defensive and trying to point out that everyone is somehow ignoring, combating, or harassing you. That's simply not true.
Post 7:2 and 7:3
Now that we've determined card type is the determinate factor in grouping, and added on a whole lot of other rules governing what types of cards are excepted and cannot be grouped at all, I ask again: what is the point? Why do we need to implement this unreasonably complicated system of rules just to govern what players can and cannot do with their own boards?
I'll direct you here to Devonin's post, 5:18, which outlines some examples of simple, straightforward, and effective changes to general rules. These changes don't require complex definitions of grouping, nor do they mandate what kinds of qualities cards must share to be in physical proximity. They simply address extreme cases with responsive answers.
Example: Urza is using a die to represent loyalty counters in addition to the starting loyalty of his planeswalker. He moves the die off the card to denote that the indicated number of counters is subtracted from the starting loyalty.
Problem: This is an unclear representation of the game state and leads to confusion because of proximity.
Solution: Implement a rule that states that if counters are visually represented, the representation must show the exact number of counters currently on an object.
Simple, clear, and direct.
In more nebulous cases, we apply an interpretation of the current rules because those rules work for the majority of non-extreme cases. This is also what Gidgetimer has been saying.
Everything else
I think the bulk of this discussion an be summed up by NobodyPicksBulbasaur's post, 7:10.
"There's good intent in what you're rooting for, but I think the feasibility of implementation just isn't there."
We've gotten ass deep in this debate about definitions and grouping and rules and relations, but it hasn't gotten us anywhere. The idea is valid, but the implementation is just implausibly difficult because the proposed solution tries to do too much. The simplest answers are often the best. Simple rules, coupled with judges' discretion to interpret those simple rules in complex situations.
I'd like to conclude here by reiterating that nobody in this thread should harbor ill will against other users. Our goal here is to reach a conclusion (or maybe not even that much) on the topic. Different people are welcome to have different opinions. While you're likewise welcome to disagree with those opinions, you must still acknowledge the right of the other party to have and express his or her opinion as a member of this discussion. It is the responsibility of each poster to use sufficient detail to avoid confusion and misinterpretation.
We all need to put aside whatever personal qualms we have with one another for whatever reason.
January 21, 2014 2:27 p.m.
Triforce-Finder says... #36
Are you trying to make me look bad?
Repeating questions is being impatient. Saying that nobody answers unless tagged and tagging me directly after that is demanding a response.
I respect the right of everybody to have their own opinion. If you say I don't, you're simply lying. I assume that you will claim not to imply that, if so you're lecturing me without need. Now, that's not condescending at all...
That's it, epoch, you drove me out of the discussion. Good work.
January 21, 2014 2:44 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #37
@Triforce-Finder: I can't stop you from misinterpreting what we're saying. Repeating questions is all we can do when we ask, you answer, and we still don't have enough to get anywhere. As I said, you continue to believe I'm somehow out to get you, despite that being the exact opposite of what I have said not only now, but in all the posts before.
January 21, 2014 3:28 p.m.
On the first page of this discussion, I read that Competitive events above FNM level are comparable to sports. For those that think it's a dick move to arrange your board-state in a way that's confusing to the opponent, but still within the parameters of the rules, are you willing to argue that it's also wrong for a quarterback to use a hard count to try drawing the defense offsides and get that 5-yard penalty rather than run a play to try to get the 2 yards needed for a first down? Or how about the coach that calls a timeout at the last possible second before the other team snaps the ball to attempt a game-winning field goal, causing the kicker to have to attempt the kick again and possibly miss? Dick moves if you're on the bad side of the play, but acceptable and legal strategy.
Grouping Dryad Arbor in with the rest of your lands is no different than grouping Seat of the Synod . Both are still technically lands, but both are also something else also. Perfectly ok as long as you and your opponent can tell that they're not just basic lands. What happens if the Arbor were to be required to be grouped with creatures? The person playing it may forget that they have that one more mana when they thought they were 1 short to play something. You may say that's on that player to pay closer attention to the board state and remember that ability, but my counter-argument is that you should also have to pay closer attention and remember it as well. Same for artifact lands. Should I be required to keep it with artifacts just so you can remember that you can Shatter it? Again, I may forget that it's also a land and forget to sac it if someone plays Balance . Now I have made an illegal play and can be penalized for cheating, but the responsibility falls on me because it's my board, even though I made a change in my grouping methods to help make the board clearer for you.
For every argument that can be made for a change, there's at least one counter-argument that can be made against it.
January 21, 2014 3:43 p.m.
As to both situations I think they are fine. All foreign I have no issue with them not explaining the cards if its REL but for FNM with the different level of players that come out for that you should be expecting to have to explain a few of the cards a couple times. Dryad Arbor is a land and I have no issue with it being in the land. I had someone telling me just tonight that people have misplayed against his Mutavault several times cause he runs the textless versions. I dont have an issue with that either as long as the card is explained if asked about.
At my LGS I run foreign cards but have screen shots on my phone of the gatherer page for each of the foreign cards in the deck. As well for each foreign card I normally have multiple english copies around too. As well in group EDH I try to keep the foreign cards to a minimum unless its something obvious like Wurmcoil Engine .
January 22, 2014 12:56 a.m.
NobodyPicksBulbasaur says... #40
Even something that is a MtG staple at this point, like Mother of Runes
has a lot of semantics about how you can use its ability.
Off the top of your head, could you say with 100% certainty that she only gives pro-colors to creatures, or does it apply to other permanents as well? Does her ability target? Are there restrictions on the target or can I give my opponent's creatures pro-green in response to their Rancor ? It's safe to say that not all players will be able to answer those questions if there's a Russian Mom hanging out in front of them, even though she's been a staple in many decks for years now.
Magic is a game with so many minute details that knowing exactly what every card on the battlefield does could easily mean the difference between winning and losing a game. That's why this issue has been so touchy.
January 22, 2014 1:36 a.m.
Some1TookMyName says... #41
It was extremely irritating in a game 3 for an FNM top 8 when I attack two creatures for lethal at my opponent to find a mutavault hiding under his forearms and proceed to lose. At a local IQ an opponent miscalculated devotion. he believed he had 8 and I corrected him as he had 10. 8 & 10 was the difference in a loss or win for me against his Polukranos, World Eater . At the end of the day idc how people play, it shows the type of person you are and character.
January 22, 2014 1:44 a.m.
Some1TookMyName says... #42
interesting read after going through everyones response.
January 22, 2014 1:49 a.m.
MadDreams I think you have a valid point in the first case. You are not allowed to cover your board, all cards in a public zone have to be visible. If you think or noticed that it was something ongoing and being done on purpose it should be shown to a judge for sure.
January 22, 2014 3:59 a.m.
Some1TookMyName says... #44
NeoHazard, it seems to be pretty common among people I play to have their elbows on the table over their mana. Must not have learned any table manners.
January 22, 2014 4:32 a.m.
Gidgetimer says... #45
If someone is going to have their arms on the table they need to shift everything forward so that nothing is covered up. If it was me any time I saw them leaning over the mana I would ask "Available mana? Colors? Can I see it?". Anyway as you said they must not have learned any table manners, I am mentally unable to put my elbows on a table.
January 22, 2014 6:56 a.m.
GureiSeion says... #46
Aside from regular FNMs, I more or less mentor at a smaller community center tournament. It's put me in the habit of playing wordy things upside-down to make it easier for newer players to read (a preempt, if you will), and keeping English copies of cards around for review. As the closest thing to a judge (rules adviser) at the event, one thing I've noticed is that since starting there I've become better / quicker at reading board states. Amusing trade-off, in my opinion.
If you're going to play foreign cards solely to be deceptive, my advice is to know them as well as you can. It's not too often, but I can recall a few times where an experienced player missed something small that cost them the game. (Like thinking there was an upkeep-only activation restriction on Shrine of Burning Rage while staring down lethal next turn.)
January 22, 2014 11:43 p.m.
AyeDavanita10 says... #47
I think it all comes down to every player's different definition of ''mind games'' and ''competition''
What I'm saying is, based on simple psychology, what some might consider a ''dirty trick'' others may just see it as a neutral action, Taking the examples listed above, while some think that hiding the Dryad Arbor and Mutavault or making the other player ask the judge, depending on the environment you were raised on, on what you're used to, it can either be a simple and routine action, because you are used to it, or it can be something that you might consider offensive, as you have not dealt with it before. The problem here is defining barriers that between making every effort to win, without harming your opponent, and playing ''dirty''
Again, this is just my opinion, and i'm pretty sure i wasn't able to express myself the way i wanted (sounds much better in my native language without having to translate :p)
January 23, 2014 12:44 p.m.
MadScientist says... #48
IMHO the foreign language cards is a morally crappy move whether it be legal or not.
I am on the fence with the hiding of a mutavault in your lands but as long as you can still see the card name its not really an issue.
There are so many other "tactics" that are legit and fun to play like the lifting a card then putting back in your hand when an opponent casts a spell, leaving 2 islands untapped at the end of each turn for a counter (whether you have one or not), sorting your lands, counting your lands. There are all parts of game!
MGT for me has always been a fun social hobby and I enjoy playing against all kinds of decks and opponents. If I had to deal with someone that purposefully used a deck of foreign language cards and refused to relay the card text would seriously detract from the enjoyment of the game.
Competition is competition but in all competition there needs to be a modicum of sportsmanship. Hell even in UFC after rounds of beating on each other the opponents shake hands or in most circumstances hug after the match. It is a matter of respect, it needs to be part of every sport. MGT included.
just my 2 cents
Epochalyptik says... #1
@Devonin: Those suggestions are certainly more reasonable than any we've reached thus far. Granted, I don't know all of the intricacies of the DCI's policymaking procedures, but it doesn't seem illogical or impossible from either a theoretical or practical standpoint to officially implement those guidelines.
The next step would be to catalog which practices are the most problematic, and define which of them must be addressed.
January 20, 2014 11:17 p.m.