>SCG Open semifinals
>Bradley Carpenter casts Pithing Needle, says 'Borborygmos' against Grishoalbrand player Bob Huang
>because Borborygmos (Guildpact version) is a valid declaration for Pithing Needle, Bob Huang proceeds to reanimate Borborygmos Enraged and kills his opponent
>Carpenter used shorthand to refer to the actual Borborygmos, and yet, unfortunately, because his shorthand was an actual card (similar to 'Shackles' for Vedalkan Shackles), his opponent was given the go ahead.
Does Carpenter deserve the loss? Is this a prime example of rules lawyering?
My opinion: If I were the Grishoalbrand player, I would have accepted my loss and informed the player afterwards. I don't think the discussion is over whether he knew that the card he named was a valid card, but more, whether or not he knew he could use shorthand to refer a card that literally killed him already in an earlier game. I can't fault my opponent for repeating a name for a card in my deck that I probably mentioned myself earlier in the match, likely without the 'Enraged' part. I don't really expect anyone I play with to have known that the distinction was explicitly required unless they had already had it happen to them or a friend they knew. Winning matches (regardless of the stakes) like this isn't outplaying my opponent. I'm no longer playing the game if I do this.
I am pretty strict with respect to missed triggers and various other mechanical misplays, but this steps outside the boundaries of my integrity. If I am on the opposing side of a Needle or Meddling Mage, I am always going to ask "Could you repeat the distinct name of the card that you're choosing?" This is nitpicking aspects of the English language and has nothing really to do with the mechanics of a card, but more the imprecise methods of executing the declaration of a card name that cannot really be worked around apart from the use of technology (see: MTGO).
My ideal solution would be that whenever a card is named, and that named phrase exists within the full name of multiple valid card choices, clarification is immediately required. This is not realistic, however, within normal tournament settings, but it would ensure that all parties are clear and in agreement on the named card.
I understand that there is no possible way to tweak the rules to prevent this from happening, and I understand relying on objectivity over intent is integral to supporting trustworthy judging throughout Magic. What irritates me most is that the majority of the discussion for this on the internet features people who actively support the idea that the Needle player deserved the loss despite falling prey to a language quirk, and not a gameplay mistake. I would gladly concede regardless of the stakes because I prefer to beat my opponents with integrity, and not through a clever little loophole.
At a fucking open, you better be fucking right with your words.
It isn't about your opponent being nice or mean, it's about you knowing what you mean and not fucking up.
TLDR: you blew it Bradley, now stop bitching on 4chan.
This is top 8. Decklists were known.
Also because of the fact that OG Borby has never seen Modern play literally ever.
Also because the Grishoalbrand player literally uses the card to kill the opponent.
Also because OG Borby doesn't even have an activated ability.
Whatever the case, he named a valid target and judges aren't there to say "are you sure you want to do that?" they are there to enforce the rules of the game.
Opponent fucks up like that, I'm taking it.
That sounds pretty autistic desu senpai. Though it's par for the course as far as the MTG community is concerned. I for one would let this slide if my opponent did that, or ask him to clarify that he means Borborygmos Enraged, but whatever.
But he deserved the loss, technically. If you say a name which can refer to two different cards, and don't specify which one, how is it fair to your opponent if by some chance he has both in his deck?
Yeah, see, I know that judges shouldn't have to step in. They can't.
But it wasn't even a fuckup like a missed trigger, or something related to gameplay. It was a nitpicky language fuckup, something that isn't at all indicative of my opponent's skill as a player.
Again, see this post >>44703654
If there was any chance whatsoever that my opponent would ever want to name the incorrect card, I'd take advantage of that, but there was no ambiguity at all.
In the past, in Legacy, people have named 'Shackles' for Vedalkan Shackles, and the actual Shackles card is the last thing you would ever name for Needle but people rules lawyer them anyway.
I would honestly try to go for it if my opponent used a card's nickname (of course asking the judge after pithing needle resolved if I could activate the ability of X card since the opponent technically didn't name it)
Shortcuts have defined rules. They need to be approved by both players.
At an fnm, this is a dick move. At some of the highest levels of competition and rules enforcement, sucks for the guy who named wrong.
it is indicating the skill of your opponent since he either didn't care enough to be precise or didn't know that Borby G was an actual card. My opponent made a mistake, if he admits to it, we can move on and I can win because conceding to him would be a pity move that I wouldn't want done to me. If he starts throwing a fit about how everyone should know what he meant, fuck him, he said the wrong thing.
That's like if you gave your creature pro-green when they needed pro-red "Y-you know what I meant!" is a shit excuse
The rules fully support this. And there is no way to change the rules to accommodate for this.
I understand as a judge that this is perfectly fine.
But you're still a dick if you try and take advantage of this.
Green doesn't have 'red' in part of it's name.
This is a very unique/distinct scenario. You can't compare it to just any vague takesy-backsy language.
The first FNM I played after Avacyn Restored came out, I played for first against a guy playing some RGx ramp with Primeval Titan. He plays a Cavern of Souls, naming "titan." He then uses it to cast Primeval Titan. I counter it. He says he used Cavern. I point out that Primeval Titan's creature type is "giant" not "titan." He tries to say "you know what I meant." I say "you said titan, your spell is countered. Want to call a judge?" I went on to take first.
>you would defend this
He made the wrong call because he didn't read the fucking card
here's an idea, next time you know your opponent is going to reanimate a card, ask to look at their graveyard and
READ THE FUCKING CARD
I was tripping on /mu/ and forgot to take it off.
That's perfectly reasonable. Why would I defend this? That opponent had no idea what valid card types were.
He knew exactly what he was referring to. Everyone did. He thought he could use shorthand.
If there were two different Borborygmos cards in the graveyard, we would not be having this discussion, but instead the assholes of the game choose to be nitpicky over language.
his opponent rules lawyered a win that he would have infact lost otherwise.
everyone knows what the player meant but he weasled his way out of his loss.
Bob is a shitter and deserves exactly zero respect for winning in such a way.
When you are in the semi-finals of an open, shorthand doesn't cut it. If you give an answer that could either be right or wrong on a test, it'll be counted as wrong by most sane teachers.
>Oh no, I fucked up on a minor detail and my opponent snatched victory because of it
>what an asshole, there is absolutely nothing I could learn from this situation.
I'm all for enforcing strict play, but this standard of scrutiny is unreasonable. It's nowhere near common knowledge that shorthand isn't acceptable. This is more of an obscure corner case than you will ever find on any sort of test in school.
This isn't a proper test of how skilled you are as a player. This has nothing to do with your abilities within Magic. If Carpenter had done it before in the tournament, and continued to fuck up, or if naming cards was something that happened multiple times in every game of MTG, then sure, punish players for fucking it up, but that just doesn't happen.
Personally, if the card in question is clear to both players than there should be no issue, he OBVIOUSLY meant the 'Borborygmos' with an activated ability, and the one that is on his opponent's deck-list, and both plays should have played as such.
But, the thing is, there is no way to prove that both players understood what he meant. Even though Bob thinking "Oh yes, he misspoke, I can abuse that!" to himself is more likely than him having thought "Huh, why did he name the guildpact card? I guess he has a reason.", he can claim the latter and no one could prove otherwise. Thus, the rules can't really enforce an "obvious to everyone" sort of thing without giving judges too much discretion to decide matches based on who the like more.
At high level play you have to expect to have to deal with WAAC types like that. Bradley Carpenter deserves the win at the kitchen table and FNM (assuming oithing needle working would have been enough for him to do so), he does not at a high-level event.
Bob Huang is still an asshole for trying that at ANY level of play, but if you wanna play in high-level events you as a player have to be able to play a tight enough game that assholes like that can't take advantage of you.
There's some players at my LGS who refer to literally every card by shorthand to the point where it gets annoying. Thoughtseize = "Seize", Serum Visions = "Visions", etc.
I'm sure pretty much everyone says "I play a fetch, I crack it, get tapped shock" when in a hurry, rather than "I play a Polluted Delta, and paying one life, tapping it and sacrificing it, I search my library for a Watery Grave, which I then put into play tapped"
Regular REL is a lot different than Comp/Professional REL. Also, there is no "titan" creature type and Cavern is a mandatory effect. This isn't really comparable. Also, you're an asshole. It's FNM not the World Championships.
My point is that this shouldn't even be considered a fuckup of the same magnitude as other general rules fuckups. It's so minor, so nitpicky, that I would never take advantage of it. You can use shorthand in literally every other case in Modern and you will never have anyone correct you.
Even commentators use shorthand constantly. There's no indication that this would have been a problem unless you're specifically looking to make this a problem.
Carpenter did not make his intentions explicit in providing shorthand in the place of the full card name. It was his error and it cost him the game, because that's what "competitive" means: you play badly or sloppily and you should lose.
Such is life.
>My point is that this shouldn't even be considered a fuckup of the same magnitude as other general rules fuckups. It's so minor, so nitpicky, that I would never take advantage of it. You can use shorthand in literally every other case in Modern and you will never have anyone correct you.
Your point dos not stand. You have to make a legal choice for cards like these. If you do, good. You chose "Borborygmos" which is legal. It's not "Borborygmos Enraged" like you "meant" to say but why should everyone assume it was what you meant? It's your job to communicate correctly. Naming "fish" with Cavern of Souls is perfectly fine and it's a creature type in Magic. You can't expect that now everyone knows you MEANT to say "merfolk". Not everyone knows shorthands and the judge will never check if your opponent "got" what you were trying to say. It's not their job to decide what you meant to say. You said "Borborygmos" and that's it. There are precise rules and not grey areas.
Saying you won't abuse this means nothing.
If it makes a mechanical difference I hope they would correct me
If I play Pithing needle and fuck up which fetches my opponents run and we all know they don't have those fetches in their decks, I'm going to be upset at myself, not ask for a do-over.
Maybe it's just my old store, but that doesn't seem like an asshole move beyond the bad game state
Perhaps Bob Huang's opponent is like me and didn't realize there was a plain "Borborygmos" card and assumed saying that would refer to "Borborygmos, Enraged." In that case, Bob Huang displayed a better knowledge of the format, which is a reasonable advantage to assert at competitive REL.
Communication is key. See also >>44704191
Shorthand in general is fine, especially when it comes to Pithing Needle. If he had said "Borborygmos that throws lands" or even "the Borborygmos that killed me last time" it would be a good enough target. The problem is that his shorthanding was actually the name of another potential legal target.
Sure he's an asshole, but that's not what's under discussion because a Judge can't rule on it (at least not in an official capacity). Carpenter may as well have cast Pithing Needle and declared "MAH BALLS", because that's not "Borborygmos Enraged" either and Pithing Needle does care about what you name.
The ruling was technically correct, and Huang is a cunt. Those are the facts of the matter, regardless of how salty it makes people.
Bob isn't playing at FNM. He's playing for thousands of dollars. I like to win at FNM too but if someone makes a simple mistake I wouldn't act fucking autistic about it and threaten to call a judge.
Do not threaten to call a judge on other players. Judges are not judging regular REL events to give out penalties, they're there to make sure everyone has fun and the rules are enforced to a certain level of competency. Mistakes are fixed, not punished.
Your last sentence is all I care about.
I know I can't make the ruling somehow incorrect, but it disappoints me that people would take advantage of it. As someone who spends a ton of time on MODO, I know that if MTG was an online-only game, this problem would simply not exist. It's not a test of your skill as a player, it's a test of how much you can rules lawyer your opponent.
oh I agree, he's a cunt, and I agree, these are the rules.
I just want to overstate how much a cunt he is.
this is the same cunt who was "boycotting" Hasbro/Wizards of the cost 6 months ago.
A veteran affinity player at my FLGS literally tried to argue that "mana abilities aren't activated abilities" to avoid getting rekt by Stony Silence. I had no choice but to call a judge.
These people are everywhere, something about MTG really brings out the autism in people.
Understanding rules and interactions is part of being a skilled player, as is not making simple mistakes like not clearly stating your intentions. Carpenter made a basic mistake and he lost because of it. Whether you like it or not is irrelevant.
Don't make that kind of mistake, and if it bothers you don't play the game the way Huang did. I'd absolutely respect that. But don't for one minute assume anyone else at a competitive event shares your sentiments.
Yeah, this whole thread really looks like I'm throwing a bitch fit about not being nice to opponents and trying to circumvent rules, but I'm really just incised that this is how people try and eke out their wins.
True. Rules knowledge is extremely important, but this... this is knowledge of a rule that is only in place because of the imperfect nature of declaring cards without the aid of technology. I don't feel like it's an integral part of playing the game, and it bothers me that someone would see this as an opportunity to be an asshole.
Why are people so hesitant to call a judge anyway? It's what we're there for: To clear up any problem that arises during the game. (And other shit, too.)
It's not rude to call a judge. It's much better than later finding out the other guy wasn't right and then being salty about it forever. You could've just called a judge.
I did this with Infinite Obliteration on Ulamog, the ceaseless hunger, and my shitter opponent asked me to spell out the whole thing.
as in, if I failed to correctly spell it, he wouldn't allow it, I immediately called a judge and said "Robert's being a prick again" and we got it sorted.
I love it when my opponent calls judge
8/10 times I am right
1/10 times I learn something new and will be right the next time
The other 1/10 of the times, I look it up when I get home and that low level judge was full of shit, but that's happened a lot less often recently as I've started going to bigger stores
Good. This was the right reaction.
Also, when something requires a name, you just have to identify it so it can't possibly mean something else. See >>44704412
You don't have to spell it out exactly.
Fucking up a ruling has nothing to with your judge level. I've seen L3s fuck up simple rulings just because they misunderstood something.
If you find out your judge was wrong, talk to him later about it so he or she won't make the same mistake again in the future.
Because in the vast, vast majority of cases involving Pithing Needle, Carpenter's actions would be perfectly valid and not require scrutiny at all. I can bet you in all the decks you've run, there's some obscure rules case for one of the cards you played that was used in some sort of judging test that you've never even heard of, but does that make you a worse player for it?
I get into fierce fucking arguements at my LCS because our "judge" is just the store owner who doesn't know as much as me or the other top players.
so when say, i Dromoka's Command in response to the targeting of my creature from your Silk Wrap, and ask you to sacrifice an enchantment, and you insist my creature bounces I get pissed.
they expect me to concede this to them for some reason, when it clearly works the way I intend, that the creature never leaves play.
yes, that is very true, but my opponent would also be a complete fucking cock to pull this, if I were dumb enough to fall for it.
also their is no "Ulamog" their is "Ulamog the Ceaseless hunger" and "Ulamog the infinite gyre"
Hey judge, if i'm playing at FNM, and am paired against a kid first round, is there a correct procedure for slow play? I don't want to be that asshole who calls a judge on a 10 year old, but I also don't being knocked out of prizes because we go 1-1-1.
Even as a judge it feels bad to call out slow play, I have to admit. But try first to ask him to not muse over every single play for one minute. If he still plays slowly, call for a judge.
Who will then feel bad for trying to find a way to make the kid play faster.
Most of the time slow play really happens when players are inexperienced and try to think about every option because they haven't internalized a lot of the stuff required to play effectively and go through your turn automatically.
I also have good players who actively slow play to get draws instead of outright losses
nothing is more infuriating than watching them stare at their cards and laugh on the turn before I beat them.
as I said, their are no judges heir, gandalf the grey.
my FNM is run by a store owner who's a nice guy to a fault, he refuses to involve himself in any conflict because he can't stand pissing off anyone.
and he isn't even a judge.
so its me and 2 other guys who "judge" the event, in the sense that we are the only ones who know the rules and won't abuse the fuck out of them or lie about them.
so its a nightmare when shit like slowplay happens, I just have to eat the draw.
Then confront your store owner about it. You're free to not be a customer there anymore. Tell them their store would profit from having a certified judge.
Even when your opponent has no way to win, they're not required to concede. They only have to play at a reasonable speed.
>when it clearly works the way I intend, that the creature never leaves play.
I'd disagree on the "clearly".
Like, yes, with knowledge of the rules (or just fucking looking the card up on gatherer), and knowing how abilities with conditional durations work, that is how it works, and yes a JUDGE should know that, but that doesn't make it CLEAR.
Clear would be "this is intuitive just from reading the cards and knowing the BASIC rules of the game", but just knowing the basics I would personally have assumed that the target is flickered.
But maybe I am just arguing semantics when you meant "clearly to someone who as any real knowledge of the higher level rules of the game" and we are at another shorthand issue.
If you're running pithing needle you better know the full name and spelling of every card you would want to fuck with.
Letting him clarify which borborygmos he wanted to needle would be detrimental to the game.
It's like a judge reminding you of "may" triggers, or asking you if you really want to leave X creature unblocked.
It's more disappointing than anything, big events like these are supposed to draw in new players but seeing something so unsportsman like is only going to turn them away.
I liken it to soccer (football) where players will collapse on the ground to get a free kick, not a perfect analogy but still, it leaves a bad taste in the mouth of all involved.
oh don't worry actual Magic Players will do that all unto themselves, go to any FNM and at least half your "regular cast" are just the worst fuckers imaginable who will do anything to win and spend all their time being oppressive elitists like some sort of "geek Jock", intent on making you feel rejected.
Why should it disappoint you? It's a blatant misplay. The better analogy is an own goal, because it's your own damn fault for making the mistake in the first place and not the other team's fault for winning because of it.
All memes aside: If you're not even telling them what's going wrong, don't even expect them to do anything about it. It's not Wizards' fault then. It's your own fault for accepting it and that you don't even want it fixed.
So, a miss from one player, costing him the game, is comparable to foul play?
Are you the kind of guy who calls other players cheaters when you forget to sac your smokestack before you are forced to clean your own field?
Oh, you bet I'm telling them stuff. It's just kinda useless
Pithing Needle isn't like other cards, though. I think the specificity and unusualness of having to name a card rather than just indicate a card would warrant taking extra care. Especially at that level.
>Pithing Needle isn't like other cards, though.
I didn't say it was unique. I said it wasn't just like a random card with usual rules. There are, what, a handful of cards that require you to name a card off the top of your head.
Pithing needle's effect in that case is far from obscure and "judge test" material.
Card says name dude
Player named valid dude
Was not the dude he wanted
Boo fucking hoo, read the decklists next time if you want to play pithing needle.
Also, before you bitch, pithing needle is far from being the only reason to know all possible decklists in your local meta and in an oficial tournament.
Try playing any control deck in a high competition environment.
What bradley did was like forgetting the cmc of the creature you wanna tutor with green sun's zenith.
I have no problem with rules lawyering but the problem is that I've seen this seep into casual play like FNMs and prereleases (level 1 judge here)
It bums out new and casual players when grinders refuse to concede minor mistakes and "you know what I meant" errors and shit like missed triggers
Though is it a legit argument to bring up "it's just an FNM" at an FNM? Personally I see it as a dick move, but if I was in a judge's position over it I'd say he didn't say the particular card. Not like the rules are suddenly different because you're playing for store credit instead of 10 grand.
Yes. The rules enforcement level at a FNM is regular, not competitive. Stuff like missed triggers get rewound and put on stack (unless the judge estimates that significant information passed between players as a result), accidentally seen cards are put back into library and the derived information (P/T on creatures that can be changed like Goyf and various combat abilities that are added by spell effects, as well as how various cards interact) is considered free and must be provided when asked for
Shorthand does apply because regular REL is about what you meant, not what you explicitly said, with erring on the best case scenario for the ambiguous player rather than worst case one
Demanding precision is more fair than making allowances for blunders on the basis of "well we all know what he MEANT TO DO".
The situation described by OP may have been clear, but what if the "mistake" made by the player isn't really a mistake, but a clever trap, and if he gets questioned about he's forced to reveal his plan?
There are so many unique functions in MTG cards that it's more fair to assume players know what they're doing and not start to correct blunders that may not have been blunders to begin with...
Note that if a player keeps making the same mistake during a single game night feel free to not rewind. First few times is okay but the slide is supposed to remind them to watch out for things, not to cause laziness
"Shorthand" as described in the CR isn't for abbreviating card names, it's for repetitive actions-
Ex. Instead of 'tap exarch to splinter twin's ability, target himself. Pass priority. Ability resolves, exarch enters. Trigger on stack, target exarch. Pass priority.' Etc etc you can shortcut by saying "I make a million mans."
I'm pretty sure you can't run a sanctioned FNM without a judge, and I'm also pretty sure you can't call your unsanctioned event "Friday Night Magic".
If they are, confront the store owner, then report the store to the DCI if he's a dickhole about it.
The magic game fan in me says this is bullshit and Huang is an ass.
The magic player in my says this sucks, but is part of the game. If you use shorthand and it backfires then that's a learning experience. You should always state full names of targets outside of kitchen table magic. That's part of the "fun" that is the hell that is tournament play.
Anyone else think it's ironic to get enraged about forgetting to add the word "enraged"? If this ever happened to me, i'd throw lands at my opponents face whenever I activated his ability.
>Does Carpenter deserve the loss?
Yes. He did not specify, it's not like saying "Jace" which should be asked "which" or saying "Shackles" since everyone uses vedalken's and not any other shackles, it's high level play not store-level.
>ITT mtg players declare no perfectly logical shorthand can be used in their game.
>game now requires extremely strict language because of rules lawyers
>people think this makes the game competitive, where in reality it shows how petty it is
>I know that if MTG was an online-only game, this problem would simply not exist.
It would absolutely exist. If MTG was a purely online game, and you drop Pithing Needle, the game would ask you for a card name. You give it Boborygmos and, yep, looks like that's a valid card name. It's locked in. Would you expect there to be more wiggle-room in an entirely computer rules-enforced version of magic?
There's a big difference between the two.
Imagine, for a moment, that River Delta was called just Delta.
If there's any ambiguity at all it should be considered an invalid choice that requires clarification, not this bullshit.
I'm more of a "spirit of the law" type of guy, but that's not the first time this happened and this Bradley guy should be aware that weasels will always rules lawyer their way to victory if you let them, especially when there are stakes.
If I'm not mistaken mtgo gives you a list of cards and a search filter, then you startfilling the search and pick the card you want. The mistake in that case would probably be a missclick not insufficient data.
>Does Carpenter deserve the loss? Is this a prime example of rules lawyering?
He deserves the loss because the original version of Borborygamos is quite literally just called "Borborygamos". If the original had a slightly different name the judge may have brought it to his attention, but the ruling was correct.
I've noticed that Asian Magic players tend to be among the worst humans alive when it comes to doing anything in order to get a win.
With players like Mike Long and Ken Jeong, alongside a number of episodes at various FNMs, I'm starting to get a sense that Asians just have a different understanding of rules, morality, and sportsmanship when it comes to playing games.
As a lawyer, I can say that this kind of fuck ups happen because Wizards apply the shitty american Common Law tradition that places the written word before anything.
Civil Law tradition values intent above words (specially when the case is as clear cut as this one). This is the reason why any euro or hispanoamerican player is enraged with this ruling: it's completely against anything we know.
I am still endlessly salty about a game of the DBZ card game that got stalled out.
The guy had 1 card in his deck after drawing. He would have instantly lost the moment his turn started as he'd have no cards in his life deck. So he stalled out for a good 5 minutes in the battle of my turn to have the game run to time and become a tie.
He then went on to win the tourney. Unfortunately that game does have actual judges you can get to call bullshit and he was a friend of the owner of the store.
I could say cowardly, ratlike, or otherwise behavior you would only expect from the highest order of That Guy, but I chose something else. Everyone knew what the guy said, everyone knew what he meant, but it was misinterpreted as literal
Maybe I'm just a guy who enjoys a weird rules interaction, but if you're going to play a card in a deck you should know any special or important rulings about it. If you test your deck a lot you will eventually run into weird corner cases, if this sort of thing blindsides you, test more.
Ha Ha get #rekt Carpenter fags
Do you seriously think people aren't pulling 10x worse shit at the Pro Tour? Those guys are worse than scum, you just don't see it on camera a lot. What Bob did is tame compared to trying to get your opponent DQ'ed for farting at your deck and moving the top card by 10 microns
L1 judge out of Ohio here. Carpenter misplayed. Huang took advantage of the misplay and won. That's the beginning and end of the story.
Did Huang cheat? Absolutely not.
Did he do anything unethical or indecent? No.
Would ANY competitive player in his position do the exact same thing? Absolutely, without a second thought.
Is Carpenter going to remember to play pithing needle properly? You bet your ass he will.
Now the question is, are YOU going to learn anything from this, anons?
>What Bob did is tame compared to trying to get your opponent DQ'ed for farting at your deck and moving the top card by 10 microns
Its such a technical misplay, only because there is actually a card named "Borborygmos" that already exists.
What if you wanted to name a Chandra card and only called out "Chandra"? There are dozens of Chandra cards that exist, but would your opponent be able to say that you called out the wrong Chandra card?
You don't have to spell the card name. You just have to make it clear that there's no other card you COULD have meant. "the borborygmos in your yard", "land-throwing borborygmos", "the legendary gruul guy from gatecrash" all uniquely identify it.
Yes it's a bit unfortunate that he named a card that existed, but he's playing for $10k. he should KNOW that there's two copies of borborygmos, and he should KNOW that needle requires you to be specific. At FNM I'll give the newbie benefit of the doubt. At professional level play, I'd expect better.
You obviously only made this thread to find people who agree with you, not to actually debate.
You make a rolling stop at a stop sign, look around and see that you're the only person on the road, it's safe to assume that there is no danger of not coming to a complete stop.
Then you get pulled over. Why? You didn't do anything 'wrong'. You just didn't follow the rule. Borborymos is a valid target, and it isn't B. Enraged. That isn't rules lawyering, that's making a misplay and having to own up to it. I guarantee he'll never make the mistake again.
Match between Abzan and B/W Tokens I believe.
Guy attacked with a Trampler and Tokens guy blocked with a 1/1 with Pro Red. Attacker forgot to declare trample damage on the opponent and just let the damage go through, but a Judge corrected it and the Attacker won the match.
Nope. Unless otherwise stated, it's assumed that an attacking creature with trample is doing the minimum lethal damage to each blocker, and the rest to the player. That's a formally accepted shortcut written into the rules, and unless the attacking player specifically says otherwise, that's how it goes.
He doesn't have to. the game automatically assumes any excess damage spills over to the player.
Yes, it's possible. The times where you'll WANT to are few and far between, but you're allowed to assign all the damage to blockers and not deal any damage to the player.
Not specifying the exact card because there was an earlier printed card that is largely irrelevant to the format you are playing with the particular shorthand you decided to use is hardly so much a misplay as it is someone taking rule lawyering to a new extreme.
No one doubts what card he was specifying.
he was going to through the breach worldspine wurm and win next turn anyway, the pithing needle thing literally didn't matter at all. if $1000 was on the line I'd probably be a rules lawyer asshole too. if anything be angry at the judging system that allows ambiguous communication to throw matches rather than forcing players to clarify their intentions.
Pithing needle says name a card. He named a card. That it wasn't the card he wanted is his problem. If he wanted to be sure, he could have spent 5 seconds looking at Huang's graveyard to be check. He's allowed.
Both sides knew which card he meant, though. His intent was clear and everyone at the table knew it. Communication had been successfully achieved.
It was only the phrasing of that communication that was technically incorrect. Its equivalent to being on trial and asking what the definition of 'is' is because you don't want to answer the question that is being asked.
The card wasn't in the graveyard yet, but he could have actually just said "The creature that lets you discard a land to deal 3 damage" and it would have counted towards naming the card.
>This is a dick move to do
>No, there was ambiguity
>No there was no ambiguity
>Well, in some bullshit hypothetical there could have been ambiguity so it still counts
right back you.
You're right, there was no ambiguity.
He clearly named pic related, when he said Borborgymos.
In fact, by saying this card's exact name and EXACTLY NOTHING ELSE, he unambiguously named this card.
You need ambiguity to exist for your argument that he meant Borgy, Pissed Off to have any merit.
But it isn't a judge's job to see ambiguity where there is none.
You're right about there being no ambiguity. He obviously meant the same card that killed him previously in the match, one that actually has an activated ability that you would use Pithing Needle to turn off.
Seems like rules lawyering because most people doing that would indicated the Borborygmos on the table when doing it, at least that's what I tend to do so that the player is clear what my intention is, in case I mispronounce something.
Did this happen in front of a judge? How do they know for sure when someone has named a specific card? Do they write it on a piece of paper and put next to the card? How do they stop people flat out cheating and claiming they said something totally different a few turns later?
If he meant that, he should have unambiguously said so by naming that card with its full name. Not the exact name of another card.
There was no angry borgy on the table when he cast pithing needle, and everything happened in front of a judge.
>If he meant that, he should have unambiguously said so by naming that card with its full name. Not the exact name of another card.
He did unambiguously say it though.
Ambiguous: unclear or inexact because a choice between alternatives has not been made
Somehow literally everyone in the event knew he was talking about Borborgymos Enraged, including the judge and his opponent, but it wasn't unambiguous?
Magic players have fucking Stockholm syndrome with the fucking rules set, that is the only explanation for being this fucking obtuse with obvious situations.
the point me (the op) is trying to make is that if wotc hadn't botched up the naming job (ie. if OG borby was literally called 'borborygmos, the original') then this sort of thing wouldn't actually happen. it is a byproduct of language being a bitch, and not actual gameplay. sure, expect players to play tightly and to not make misplays, but this is a misplay shouldn't exist in the game of mtg.
if a player says one thing, but means another, for literally any other "misplay" in magic, fuck them. but this is different.
There was no alternative though. Borborgymos *full stop* can only mean the card named Borborgymos.
Ambiguous would be something like "Borby", which isn't a card name, and therefore doesn't have a clear card.
what? are you trying to imply that i've rules lawyered this specific aspect of the mtg rules? because this is unlike anything else in mtg and my stance on this is unlike that on all of the other misplay-related rulings in mtg. i'm not at all lenient in literally every other case.
what is 'my mistake', anon?
Pithing Needle (and needing to correctly name cards) would be a perfectly fine aspect of the game if there didn't exist two cards that start with the same proper name, and that are both referred to by that proper name in the vast majority of cases, and if by saying that proper name in a literal, binding context, you're only referring to one of the cards.
I'm saying that expecting players to adapt to this specific situation should /not/ be a part of this game. It is a skill that is useful in literally no other context.
"Lawmagic" which is white magic in mtg demands the magician to know the exact names to have the desired effect.
Pithing needle or not, in terms of flavour he got rekt.
Flavour or not, I'd be a total dick if I were in that tournament because I wouldn't want to be stomped on by the other dicks
In fairness your opponent doesn't know you don't have more than one type of Chandra in the deck. Further, I've played Pithing Needle blind in the past because I could guess what was in my opponent's deck because it was some predictable net deck. So it is a conceivable play to name a card you've not seen.
That's why being clear on the card name is important, but it's still exploitative rules lawyering by the other player because no one in their right mind would mean the other Borborgymous when the other is on the field. You just know he had a clever smirk when he did that too.
Magic isn't "the law", though. It's a game. There's no court to decide whether a play was correct or not. The rules are made so tournaments can be decided in a timely manner and the judges can resolve any situations in a way players can predict.
MTGO gives you search filter and a list of cards. If you searched for Borborygmos, you'd see Boborygmos and Borborygmos Enraged listed, and know that you have to be specific with your choice.
OH MY FUCKING GOD YOU ASSHOLES WILL GO TO FUCKING TOWN OVER ANYTHING. I NEVER THOUGHT I WOULD HAVE TO DO THIS SHIT, BUT /TG/ PROVES THEY ARE COMPLETE SHIT FUCKING AGAIN.
CARPENTER MISPLAYED. HUANG TOOK ADVANTAGE OF THE MISPLAY. LITERALLY ANY PRO PLAYER WOULD DO THE EXACT SAME THING, AND ANY JUDGE WOULD LET IT HAPPEN. IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT, THEN TOUGH SHIT, COMPETITIVE MAGIC ISN'T FOR YOU. IF YOU WANT TO NOT MAKE THE SAME MISTAKE, READ YOUR FUCKING CARDS BEFORE NAMING SHIT.
The thing here is "Borborygmos" is different from "Borborygmos Enraged" and can't be assumed to be shorthand.
If he had just said "borby there" or something equally inane yet identifying, that shorthand would have been allowed for the same reason "Pass turn" exists yet isn't in the rule book.
He didn't misplay though. He made the right decision. The decision to name borb was the correct line of play and it would have won him the game. It's a factor outside of the game itself that made him lose, in this case: his opponent not accepting his vocal shortcut.
It was an ambiguous vocal shortcut. He said the wrong thing, and therefore made a legal game action he didn't want to. That's his own fault for trying to shortcut and getting it wrong, instead of just checking on the exact name of the card with a judge or something.
Yeah lets ignore that Guildpact Borb doesn't even have an activated ability. Let's ignore that nothing in Bob's deck could give a Guildpact Borb an activated ability. Great fucking idea champ.
it's legal to name borborygmos with pithing needle
what he meant to do isn't what he did
that's his own fault, this isn't an FNM
even if you didn't know that old borby existed, even if you didn't know what new borby was actually properly called, you could still use needle as intended in that situation. the guy made an unfortunate error, that's all there is to it.
>what he meant to do isn't what he did
Thats exactly the point I'm arguing. M:tG isn't a twitch-based game. There is no manual dexterity. It's a turn based strategy game. There is no reason why intent should differ from outcome. That is why dexterity cards are banned in the first fucking place.
there's nothing that prevented him from asking a judge for the name of the RG legend that had an activated ability to discard lands for damage
there's no manual dexterity required to do that, he just didn't think of it at the time, which is no one's fault but his own
Just skimmed through this thread and there seems to be lots of arguing going on but the majority seem to be of the opinion that what happened was the correct thing.
I agree, he named a card that is legal in Modern with his Pithing Needle. The fact that that card wasn't in his deck and happens to have a name very similar to a card that is is completely irrelevant. He could have asked a judge what the name of the card is and he didn't, he just took a stab at naming it. You need to make clear which card you're referring to when naming it. This also applies to writing decklists as well, I definitely remember a friend of mine getting at least a warning off a Judge because his decklist said "2x Ajani" in his sideboard and at the time both Mentor of Heroes and Caller of the Pride were legal in Standard.
To be honest if I was in Huang's position I would have just assumed he meant the card he actually meant and carried on as if Needle was actually Needling Borborygmos Enraged, but I don't begrudge him doing what he did. One thing that is for certain is that people aren't going to be making mistakes naming stuff with Needle any time soon.
THis is bullshit. I don't care if you think magic should be played with an exactoknife this is a clear injustice for magic. Not taking back simple misplays such as casting your spell on the wrong phase, or using the wrong attackers is all fine, but the INTENT was clear. Carpenter should have gotten it. Go to law school if you want to be a lawyer. This is magic where humans come to compete with skill and strategy, nipping people at the dick and calling judges.
When people try things like nevermore or pithing needle on me and they name jace. I point and say, "This jace right here on the battlefield?" to confirm. I don't carry on and try to fuck someone over such a simple matter. Way to win with such amazing cunning and dickery.
it might be a dick move. But it's the competitive scene. Not the kitchen table or at your FLGS. i personally wouldn't do it, but if it isnt against the rules, i dont see anything people can do about it.
The problem is with the fucking "name a card" effects. It leads to situations where you lose to a skill other than the ones magic is supposed to test (accurately naming cards unambiguously is not a fucking skill) and you get situations like this where 10k goes out the window due to a technicality. The card's nearly as bad as falling star/chaos orb.
>One thing is for certain ......
Nah dude, people are going to continue to play the human way and not sweat the possibility of getting fucked over by a rules lawyer, because that's human nature, we're all trying to have fun and we will, douchebags taking advantage of that will always exist but they don't change the fundamentally casual nature of gamers
>I know that if MTG was an online-only game this problem would simply not exist
And a million others would exist, like combo players losing to time because the opponent won't concede to infinite life/infinite damage (Melira combo) and splintertwin and such.
There is one titan. Naming titan off of cavern is valid.
Even if "Titan" doesn't exist, couldn't you name it as a subtype because is kinda exist due to Changeling?
>Changeling (This card is every creature type.)
It doesn't say "This card is every creature type that has already been printed".
No, but he needs to say enough of my name to avoid any confusion. If I'm the only one around that has my first name, that's enough. If there's more than one person with that first name, you need to clarify.
I agree it's a pretty solid catch. Personally, like many have said, I think it was a dick move to make, but he was well within the rules to demand it and be rewarded for it.
It's things like this is why I don't do anything in a competitive setting anymore. I joined a local soccer league and the second time I saw some guy take a fall like some faggot in professional football I just quit. I only kick the ball around when I'm with my friends or teaching their kids. The same goes for Magic, I'm strictly MTGO or prerelease now; my friends have told me that I was good/dedicated enough to cash the local GPs but I just don't want to deal with that shit anymore. Every GP I attended I just felt like shit at the end of the day as I dealt with people trying to angle shoot me and the balance of nice people don't make up for that.
As fucking casual as it sounds I just want to have fun; I don't want to put myself in a place where I'll be reminded about the worst specimens of humanity. This stuff inbreeds within communities, if people are shitters each generation will continue being shitters unless you purge the entire community and start fresh - the same is true of office environments, police departments, and city councils.
A lot of good points. I think that if you're going to play those kind of high level events, winning games through technicalities is part of playing at a high level. It's like timing people out on modo, it seems scummy but ultimately you did win within the rules.
The problem with this is the same problem that have gifts ungiven. You can know that he does not run a borborygmos, but the deck is a hidden zone, so there is always a "chance" of having one
>Your name is brad.
>There's another brad in the office working three floors above you
>"Hello Bradley H. Limpdick, do you have the papers I asked for, Bradley H. Limpdick? If not I would be rather miffed with Bradley H. Limpdick not to be confused with Bradley J. Henderson from three stories up."
seeing as how johnson only works with one brad he should assume his boss is referring to the one they see everyday, not the one they never see, or else why would Johnson be told to fire someone he doesn't work with
The game state is no longer reversible, as you continued playing and revealed information, the opponent forfeits the game due to illegally naming a non valid creature type.
I think? Fuck if i know competitive rules well enough, not a judge
there are two players in the Indy area with the same first and last names, and first middle initial (no, they're not related). When they both show up to the same event, shit gets incredibly awkward. But the TOs find a way to differentiate the two.
The specific fuckup here is Pithing Needle says "name a card." And he did name a card - he chose a legal, extant Magic: the Gathering card. Named "Borborygmos". That card may not have been relevant, but it was the card named. End of conversation. Nobody is a dick for taking this win. Somebody is an idiot for allowing it to happen. /trollthread
Your point is invalid. In your first sentence you wrote 'dos'. This is not an English word and does not make any sense in what you are saying. Everything else you wrote thus has no context and I will not read it.
But no mistake happened. See:
The card was played as intended, but it was not a good play. In a game, bad plays happens. And thus we have a way to declare a winner and a loser.
>Does Carpenter deserve the loss?
In a tournament, yes. In testing, or just casual play, I'd assume that when my opponent says "Borborygmos" he means the card that actually is in my deck.
Bob isn't going to let irrelevant things like empathy or understanding get between him and 1000$. That's a months worth of bills for some people, fuck off if you'd think you wouldn't do the same in that situation.
>aw man, if I win this tourney I can finally pay off my car bill, no more interests!
>what, you made a mistake?
>Sure of course , I don't need to pay bills or eat well anyways, takes backsies! :DDDD
Actually I would argue that a cop pulling you over in that situation would be a douchebag because they are ignoring the spirit of the law, stop signs are there to regulate traffic so if there is no traffic to regulate it doesn't hurt anything to drive through sloppily. The worst you should get is a warning. I come from a police family for reference and I'm pretty sure none of the cops I know have ever done or would ever do something that dickish because a healthy society isn't meant to be one big game of gotcha.
Yes actually. When you're an adult with responsibilities playing against another adult with responsibilities, you don't let them break the rules, especially not because of "muh sportsmanship."
>break the rules
That isn't what happened and you know it. If you're going to be the kind of overbearing, underhanded douchebag that everybody hates at least embrace it, don't try to push it on the other guy. You will never be liked but you can at least be respected by laying claim to your scumbag nature.
>adult with responsibilities
>entire month rides on doing well at a tournament
>not just getting a normal job like an actual adult and having winnings as secondary income
>two Brads, one on your floor, one three floors up
>Brad on your floor fucks up and costs company millions
>"Johnson, go tell Brad he's fired."
>knowing your boss means the Brad on your floor, since he's the one who fucked everything up and who your boss is mad at, but you've always hated three-floors-up Brad, so you're going to willfully misinterpret your boss's words and go fire three-floors-up Brad
>thinking this is okay and doesn't make you an underhanded asshole
You must be a wonderful person with many deep, meaningful friendships.
Also, if you can afford to not need a job and go around playing magic tournaments, not winning $1000 in a tournament isn't going to make or break your bank.
>Having chess pieces light enough to be blown by the wind
no it isn't.
If we're being retarded like this, you capture someone's bishop but still lose because the bishop you didn't capture puts you in checkmate next turn
>I MEANT TO CAPTURE THAT ONE GUYS, COME ON MY INTENT WAS CLEAR :DDDD
That might actually be the least apt comparison I've ever read, congratulations. It's also a funny way to lose an argument since you're basically saying "I don't actually understand the situation we're arguing about in the slightest, I just feel right."
Amusingly enough, you're fucking wrong. If he named "Titan" rather than "Giant", he can't use the colored mana produced from Cavern's ability, which means he would've cast a spell without the mana to cast it. In that case, he shouldn't have been able to put PrimeTime on the stack and you shouldn't be able to counter it.
This is nothing like anything you're saying at all. "Jace" is not only a partial name for several unique cards but also a Planeswalker type "—Jace". Which is even more ambiguous and requires clarity to determine if an illegal call was made. In fact, it's worse because there is no card with the unique title "Jace" and therefore is always an illegal call. Whereas (Guildpact) Borborygmos is a legal target and also part of another card's name. In fact, not a single fucking analogy in this entire thread has been comparable or accurate. Why even use an analogy? Let me do you one better:
Has this game gotten so anal retentive that if I mispronounce "Borborygmos" with the card I still have to keep it? See, the issue is analness with the English language. Not card play.
You can, the guy on the OP just didn't bother to do it.
'borb that chuck lands', 'the rtr borb', 'that borb (while pointing the card in the yard)' is a perfectly fine way to name it. Again, the guy in the OP just didn't feel like clarifying when he named it.
No, it really isn't. In that example, it's mistaking how the cards work (thinking Splinter Twin has the ability, not that it grants the ability). It's a rules misunderstanding
What happened was he knew how the cards worked, and knew what card to name, but he didn't know that the shorthand he used was the actual name of a different card. There was no misunderstanding of the rules involved. It was a technicality about card names and shorthand.
No, more likely is he didn't know there was any reason to clarify at all.
Borborygmos and Borborygmos Enraged is one of only a handful of examples where one card's name is contained within another card's name. Combined with the fact 99% of legends only have one card, the idea that you'd have to clarify which Borborygmos you mean probably never occurred to anyone except Bob when he realized he could take advantage of it.
If Brad had said "Kiki Jiki", there's only one card that could refer to. Even though the card's name is actually "Kiki Jiki, Mirror Breaker", there would be no need to clarify.
If he'd said "Teysa", that could refer to either Teysa, since neither is named simply "Teysa" with no subtitle, and clarification would be required before they could proceed.
He just happened to go up against the one of a handful of cards where referring to a character's name actually refers to a different card (the only other one I can think of is Nicol Bolas and Nicol Bolas, Planeswalker).
Maybe he wanted to splinter twin his OG Borborygmos so this pro player decided to name Borborygmos to turn that off because he knows how his deck works even if he never say OG Borborygmos. There is a reason to name cards that don't inherently have an activated ability with Pithing Needle.
And i will use the argument the whole supporter have used in the thread.
There's no ambiguity. The intent was crystal clear, disrupting the Twin/Exarch combo. Twin doesn't have an activated ability anyway. So, if you name Splinter Twin on a Pithing Needle, you're supposed to be allowed to disrupt the combo.
Bottom point, the rule is absolute. This is one of my favorite factor of mtg. The rule doesn't leave room for other interpretation. You name something, you get something, you don't get something that you implied.
>he named something that coincidentally have a card and doesn't need clarification
Well, it's a good lesson for him.
But twin has more possible targets. If he plays Needle naming twin and I have both Pestermite and exarch or even the UG one in my deck choosing the card to name would make a difference between a win or a loss.
With your intent how would you rule this scenario? Now needle block all the possible targets for twin?