Timeline for Does Magic the Gathering need an independent arbiter for reliable detection of cheating?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
18 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S Jun 4 at 6:28 | history | suggested | psmears | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Improve wording and grammar
|
| Jun 4 at 2:12 | comment | added | Gabriel C. Drummond-Cole | @PhilipKendall can you make this an answer so it can be upvoted, none of the answers explicitly mention this kind of case? | |
| Jun 3 at 21:24 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Jun 4 at 6:28 | |||||
| Jun 3 at 20:08 | comment | added | Chuu | @murgatroid99 At the lowest level of the "judge iceberg" there are a couple interactions that cannot be resolved without an independent arbiter. It's just Sylvan Library/Brainstorm examples are by far the most common since both cards see tournament play. A list of current examples might be an interesting separate question. | |
| Jun 3 at 8:41 | comment | added | 2080 | @Hackworth An opponent might also find a way to gift and make the player play the second card, thus forcing everyone to keep track of this information at all times, (also so they can share it with the opponent when if they take control)? | |
| Jun 3 at 8:27 | comment | added | Hackworth | @murgatroid99 How about we move this to chat? I'd like to ask you to clarify what you're saying here | |
| Jun 3 at 8:24 | comment | added | murgatroid99♦ | The point is that Sylvan Library doesn't actually create an obligation to track every card you drew that turn, it just restricts you to putting back cards that you drew that turn. It's perfectly consistent to not track those cards at all, and not put anything back. | |
| Jun 3 at 8:20 | comment | added | Hackworth | @murgatroid99 Arguably, if your deck allows for such a scenario, you are obliged to keep track of the cards drawn at all times since it might matter in a future game state., and thus, the game state. But if that's too far out and you're not obliged to account for non-deterministic future game states, then an arbiter could not help either because the information does not exist. | |
| Jun 3 at 8:11 | comment | added | murgatroid99♦ | Technically, it is possible to resolve a Brainstorm during your upkeep without knowing that you will need to handle a Sylvan Library trigger. For example, with Leyline of Anticipation, you could resolve the Brainstorm, then resolve a different draw spell, then cast Sylvan Library all during your upkeep. However, I believe the standard resolution for a situation like that is that when resolving the Sylvan Library trigger, you are only allowed to put back cards you kept separate to establish that you drew them that turn. | |
| Jun 3 at 7:49 | comment | added | Hackworth | @PhilipKendall Yes, "generally" they are at liberty to shuffle their hands, when it doesn't matter for the game state. If a card such as Sylvan Library needs to know which cards they've drawn this turn, then they're not at liberty. | |
| Jun 3 at 7:46 | comment | added | Philip Kendall | It can't necessarily be noticed by the opponent because the player is (generally) at liberty to shuffle their hand at any point, and generally will do when resolving Brainstorm to avoid revealing whether the cards they put back are cards they drew this turn. But if you do that with a Sylvan Library trigger on the stack, the opponent can no longer verify that the cards put back with SL were in fact drawn this turn. It plays out differently in paper, where the interaction is very slighty nerfed, as opposed to MTGO where there is an independent arbiter. | |
| Jun 3 at 7:38 | comment | added | Hackworth | @PhilipKendall What exactly is the issue with Brainstorm + SL? If it's about clearly marking which card was drawn how, then that's a failure to follow card instructions that can be immediately noticed by opponent. If the game asks about whether or not a card has been drawn this turn, then the implication is that it's a piece of info the game (and thus the players) keep track of. | |
| Jun 3 at 7:32 | comment | added | Philip Kendall | "The rules of the game, together with card designs, make sure that cards whose abilities affect the game state or have to fulfill certain criteria will at some point be visible to all players, if only at the end of the game." While I believe this is true for each individual card, I also believe there are some multi-card interactions (perhaps most famously Brainstorm + Sylvan Library) where this isn't true. I know how that specific interaction plays out in tournament settings, but I wouldn't know for every possible interaction. | |
| Jun 3 at 1:14 | history | edited | Hackworth | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 114 characters in body
|
| Jun 3 at 0:59 | history | edited | Hackworth | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 116 characters in body
|
| Jun 3 at 0:51 | history | edited | Hackworth | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 116 characters in body
|
| Jun 3 at 0:50 | comment | added | murgatroid99♦ | I will add that MTG judges don't exactly fill the "independent arbiter" role as the question describes it. Judges do not watch any single game continuously, so they generally have less information about the game state than either player has. | |
| Jun 3 at 0:40 | history | answered | Hackworth | CC BY-SA 4.0 |