NRG Roundtable: Raging Kentroversy

At last weekend’s SCG Tour Modern Open in Milwaukee, a situation in an on-camera feature match set off a(nother) controversy among the Magic community.

Here’s what happened: SCG Tour regular Kent Ketter was playing Dredge. rest-in-peaceHis opponent resolved a Rest in Peace, and Kent picked up his graveyard, moved it to the side, then put it back. He said he did so because his opponent never declared the initial trigger from Rest in Peace. Kent’s opponent noticed a little bit later that Kent’s graveyard was still in place, and called a judge. Kent’s argument was that he is under no obligation to help his opponent remember triggers, which is true under the rules at Competitive REL.

What has been hotly debated is whether Kent’s initial action of moving his graveyard was an acknowledgement of the trigger. I discussed this incident in particular and some of the larger issues surrounding missed triggers with Nerd Rage Gaming contributors Mat Bimonte and Ben Meine, both of whom regularly play Competitive REL events.

(Editor’s note: We intentionally avoided any speculation as to whether what Kent did could be considered cheating, because it is not our place to make that decision. We also ignored the specifics of the judge call. This transcript has been lightly edited for grammar and clarity.)

Casey: If Kent had never touched his graveyard, would he have been wrong to not acknowledge the Rest in Peace trigger?

Ben: No way. There is nothing different about Rest in Peace than there is about Ancestral Vision or Nettle Sentinel, for example.

Casey: But, in this case, Kent did move his graveyard — and later admitted to doing so — before deciding to make his opponent declare the trigger. In my view, him moving the graveyard is an acknowledgement of the trigger. Do you agree?

Ben: Absolutely. I like using comparative examples: if your opponent wraths the board, but you have a Thalia, Guardian of Thraben and untapped Karakas in play, and you move to sweep your permanents, you can not rewind to the point of being able to Karakas your Thalia. The opportunity was missed, just like how the opportunity was missed here.

Mat: I agree that it could be construed as him acknowledging the trigger. My thing is, if I pick up my pen after someone resolves a Siege Rhino and they do nothing, is that the same?

Ben: I think the difference is that the pen is not a zone affected while the graveyard is.

Mat: The other problem with that is that Magic has no defined zones, which can be frustrating. So while I think Kent might have been angle shooting, the rules allow him to pick his cards up and place them on his forehead until end of turn if he feels the need.

Casey: I saw something similar to this happen a couple weeks ago at a (Legacy) Nerd Rage CT. I was watching Burn vs. mono-white Eldrazi. The Burn player had two Eidolons of the Great Revel in play, and the mono-white Eldrazi player resolved Thalia, Heretic Cathar. He paused for several seconds, the Burn player said nothing, and the Eldrazi player passed the turn. After untapping his lands, the Burn player tried to get the triggers. First question: How would you rule in that situation?

Mat: So the Eidolon trigger is upon cast, as soon as the spell resolves that’s it. Untapping is even further down the chain, so they’re both missed in my opinion.

Ben: Easy ruling of missed trigger.

Casey: Agreed, and the judge ruled that way pretty quickly. Second question off of that situation: If the Eldrazi player had picked up his pen, to use Mat’s example, does that change your opinion?

Ben: I would say no. I fidget with my pen all the time.

Mat: If the Burn player had picked up their pen yes; Eldrazi player, no.

Ben: Usually, if your opponent sees you pick up the pen, they will remember. But, if not, then oh well.

Casey: We’re all in agreement that at Competitive or higher REL, missing — or “missing” — a trigger is fair game. But doing something that implies you’re acknowledging the trigger is where it gets sticky.

Ben: Correct. In my mind, if you do anything to acknowledge, that should be it. That “anything” should be defined by the judge in a way that is their own interpretation of intentions. Not by sticking to the definitions of certain terminology.

Casey: Mat, you had a situation this surgical-extractionweekend where an opponent cast Surgical Extraction. You picked up the card that was targeted in your graveyard, then put it back down because you decided that you weren’t going to resolve the spell for him. If he had then missed the copy that was in your graveyard, who do you see as being at fault?

Mat: Opponent. Although, I feel like I would be nailed to a cross if I was on camera and they missed it.

Ben: The internet is miserable.

Casey: To me, the difference in your example is that the card calls for the player casting it to search for all copies of the card and remove them. So regardless of what you do — short of trying to hide a copy under your chair or something — you’re not under any obligation to actively help them.

Mat: Yea, I agree.

Ben: 100 percent.

Mat: One of the many reasons I like paper Magic in comparison to MTGO (set the program aside) is that players are punished for being less technically sound (missing triggers) than others that spend a significant amount of time playing the game.

Casey: Let’s talk about what this might mean going forward. Is there a fix for these types of situations? If so, what is it?

Ben: Let the judges be more liberal about what they can and can’t use as determining intentions.

Mat: Man that’s the tough part, isn’t it? Many will side on the “spirit of the game” where everyone needs to acknowledge every trigger, including opponents, a la FNM. The problem is that you would need a judge at every table to enforce that type of thing. Others will side on where the rules are set up so technical players are better suited, and that is for the good.

Ben: In a court of law, the judge is not allowed to “think for themselves” as far as rulings go. They have to go by what was legal, defined by exact words and actions used, and not what they think is the right thing to do. This is similar to how Magic judges have to rule and I think it should be looser. How many times have you either been in a situation or seen one where a judge has to make a ruling they really don’t want to because they know (and even the opponent agrees that) there was no malicious intent, but they have to take extreme actions on an event because that’s what the IPG says.

Mat: I also don’t understand why people on camera are supposed to be held to a higher standard. How does this issue resolve if there aren’t cameras running? It’s an interesting line to tip-toe.

Casey: What about Mat’s point about defined zones? That also seems like a logistical nightmare, but what about something like “Graveyard should be perpendicular to deck, exile should be parallel”?

Ben: That’s ludicrous and would never be executed, in my opinion. Yu-Gi-Oh’s been doing that forever, but that’s exactly why. They’ve been doing it forever. This point does roll into letting a judge make a decision based on what they think was happening and not just going by the rules that say that there are no defined zones.

Mat: I’m actually in favor of defined zones. I hate that people put their lands in front, and their library/graveyard wherever they want. They semi-enforce it on camera, but I think it needs to be uniform.

Casey: If you were Commissioner of Magic, what would your preferred organization be?

Ben: Deck top right. Graveyard underneath. Lands behind creatures. Non-creature enchantments and artifacts have to stay together on either side, but need to be above lands and separated away from creatures. Exile above deck.

Mat:layout

Ben: Also works.

Mat: Deck can be left or right based on your preferred hand; I’m a lefty. But graveyard and exile need to be uniform under them as such

Casey: Last point I’d like to discuss: The rules are clearly different on triggers at different levels of REL. Are situations like this rare enough that having different rules is OK? Or should there be some tightening of the differences to help prevent these kinds of situations? After all, a lot of people at an Open may never play more than one or two Competitive events in a year.

Ben: Interesting question. When you’re learning at a non-Competitive level, a judge should just give reminders and tips about not forgetting triggers in the future. Definitely helps when preparing for bigger events. I think having different rules is fine. Some people just can’t learn, and it’s hard to really fix that.

Mat: I think the problem is that there isn’t really a bridge from FNM to an Open, and that’s a product of Magic in general. Maybe they need to up the REL at FNM to Competitive, and leave Regular REL to weekly events.

Ben: That would be a productive start.

Casey: Agreed. There’s no real incentive to tighten up your play if it doesn’t matter in 98 percent of the events you play in.

Mat: Right, so if you are practicing playing loose, you’re going to play loose at larger events. Changing from Regular REL to Competitive REL would make a decent stride towards educating players and protecting them at large scale events. Again though, you would need at least a L1 at FNM to enforce, I believe. The logistics of that sort of thing seem interesting.

Ben: More people would get tested (for L1).

Mat: I feel like it’s a step in the right direction to help educate and protect though.

Casey: Anything else either of you want to mention?

Mat: This won’t be popular, but I feel like if people that are torching Kent were in the same position (playing for hundreds of dollars), their tune would change a bit regarding how they perceive him angle shooting in the situation.

Ben: I think it’s just pretty clear that knowing how your deck works is just strategic advantage and should be used as such.

CORRECTION: References to FNM being played at Casual REL have been corrected to Regular REL.

Casey Laughman is editor of Nerd Rage Gaming. Mat Bimonte and Ben Meine are contributors to Nerd Rage Gaming.

 

Sharing is caring!

Comments

comments

Casey Laughman