DCI rules: text
\===============
Groups
Search
Clear search
Close search
Main menu
Google apps
GroupsConversations
All groups and messages
Send feedback to Google
Help
Training
[](https://www.google.com/intl/en/about/products?tab=gh)
Groups
rec.games.trading-cards.magic.rules
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
DCI rules: text
341 views
Skip to first unread message
Michael Gosselin
unread,
Oct 14, 1996, 7:00:00 AM 10/14/96
Delete
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to
Hi! Several people with Internet access, but no web access, have asked for the
current DCI rules. I will post a copy here. I hope that WotC or DCI will
post the rules, when updated, on a regular basis.
I also hope that someone can point out an ftp site for the rules.
--
Michael Gosselin
Harvard Extension School
“Pay no attention to that tagline behind the curtain!”
-——————–DCI RULES TO FOLLOW ——————————–
Magic:The Gathering Standard Floor Rules
Official Magic: The Gathering
Standard Floor Rules
1996-97 Tournament Season; Effective October 1, 1996
IMPORTANT NOTE REGARDING ALL OPTIONAL RULES: Tournament Organizers,
Tournament Officials, and Head Judges who choose to use any rule marked
“OPTIONAL” must provide adequate notice to participants prior to the
beginning of the tournament. Optional rules may not be invoked or altered
either by tournament officials or players at any other time.
1.0 Tournament Officials
Officially sanctioned competition requires the presence of a Head Judge
during play to interpret rules, terminate excessively long matches,
disqualify players, and make other official decisions. The Head Judge may
enlist the help of officials to answer rules questions or perform other
tasks at the Head Judge’s request. The Head Judge and the Tournament
Organizer may or may not be the same individual.
1.1 Head Judge
If players should disagree with a Tournament Official’s decision, then
they are free to appeal the ruling to the Head Judge. The Head Judge’s
ruling on the appeal is final.
Sections 1.2 - 1.2.15 detail the general rulings that Tournament Officials
are frequently required to interpret and enforce.
1.2 Termination of Lengthy Matches
The Head Judge may be required to determine the outcome of an excessively
long match prior to its actual conclusion. In this instance, the Head
Judge must give the players involved at least 30 (thirty) minutes notice
before intervening to terminate the match.
Once the warning period passes and the judge announces that the match is
over, all play must stop immediately. Players in mid-turn are given a
fixed amount of time, announced by the judge, to complete their turns
before the match result is determined. (A player in mid-turn is someone
who has finished untapping all of his or her cards in play that could be
untapped at the beginning of his or her turn.)
1.2.1 Timeliness
Players must take their turns in a timely fashion. Whereas taking a
reasonable amount of time to think through game strategy is acceptable,
deliberately stalling for time is not. Failure to begin a match in a
timely manner in order to gain a psychological advantage is grounds for
disqualification.
1.2.2 Cheating
Cheating will not be tolerated. Players caught cheating will automatically
be disqualified from current competition. They may also be disqualified
from future competition at the discretion of the DCI. Cheating includes,
but is not limited to: receiving outside assistance or coaching, scouting
other players’ cards, underpaying mana, using marked cards, marking cards
during play, drawing extra cards, manipulating which cards are drawn from
your deck or your opponent’s deck (including stacking a deck to separate
land and spell cards), arranging the cards in a deck to manipulate card
draw, and deliberately stalling the length of a turn to take advantage of
a time limit.
1.2.3 Unsportsmanlike Conduct
Unsportsmanlike conduct is unacceptable and will not be tolerated at any
time. Judges, players, and officials must behave in a polite, respectable,
and sportsmanlike manner. Players who use profanity, argue, or act
belligerently toward Tournament Officials or one another will receive a
warning. Repeat warnings will result in a player’s disqualification from
the current competition and possibly future competitions (at the
discretion of the DCI). Collusion to alter the results of a duel or match
is considered to be unsportsmanlike and will not be tolerated.
1.2.4 Card Elevation
Players must keep the cards in their hand above the level of the playing
surface. If this rule is violated, the judge may issue a warning to the
player. A second violation may result in the player’s disqualification.
1.2.5 Proxy Cards
The use of “proxy” cards is not permitted. Players may not substitute one
card for another. Note, however, that when a card is excessively worn, the
judge may provide a “proxy” replacement card.
1.2.6 Card Sleeves
A player may use plastic card sleeves or other protective devices on cards
unless the judge declares otherwise at the beginning of the tournament. If
a player chooses to exercise this option, all cards in the player’s deck
and sideboard must be placed in these devices in an identical manner. If
the sleeves feature holograms or other similar markings, cards must be
inserted into the sleeves so that these markings appear only on the face
of the cards. If for any reason a player’s opponent wishes a player to
remove the sleeves/protective devices, he or she may request this prior to
the beginning of any duel, and the player must immediately comply. A
player may also request that the judge inspect his or her opponent’s
sleeves/devices prior to any duel. The judge may choose to disallow a
player’s sleeves if they are obviously marked, worn, or otherwise in a
condition that may interfere with shuffling or game play. A sleeve may be
used to mark a player’s card if the card is in the opponent’s playing
field.
1.2.7 Shuffle
Prior to the beginning of each duel, each player shuffles his or her deck.
Regardless of the method used to shuffle the deck, before play commences
each player MUST conclude this process with three standard riffle shuffles
(sometimes called “shotgun” shuffles; see 1.12, Definitions). Each time a
player shuffles his or her deck during a match, the player’s opponent may
shuffle and/or cut the player’s deck. Players may not use this rule as an
opportunity to view any cards in their opponents’ decks. After shuffling,
the decks are returned to their original owners, who may then cut (but not
reshuffle) the cards before play begins. If at any time during this
process a player believes his or her opponent’s cards are not shuffled
properly, the player may request that a Tournament Official shuffle the
deck. Note that player may count the number of cards in his or her
opponent’s library at any time throughout the match.
1.2.8 Play-Draw Rule
The winner of a coin toss (or other random method) chooses either to play
first and skip the draw phase for his or her first turn or play second.
Under these conditions, the first player chooses one or the other before
looking at his or her hand. The player who plays first skips the draw
phase of his or her first turn. All play thereafter is normal: each player
plays and draws cards within his or her turn. After the first duel in a
match, the loser of each duel decides whether to play first in the next
duel. If the previous duel was a tie, the coin is tossed again to
determine who decides which player plays first. If this rule is in use,
the judge must announce it before the tournament begins.
1.2.9 “Mulligan”
At the beginning of each duel, after determining which player goes first
(player #1), both players draw their initial hand of 7 (seven) cards. If
player #1 discovers that his or her initial hand contains all land cards
or no land cards (that is, no cards with LAND as the card type), then the
player may declare a “Mulligan” and choose to restart the duel. Player #1
is given the opportunity to reshuffle and draw 7 new cards. The opponent
(player #2) may also reshuffle. Whether or not player #1 declares a
Mulligan, the opponent is then given a chance to review his or her own
cards and decide to declare a Mulligan. If player #2 decides not to
declare a Mulligan, then player #1 may not change his or her mind.
However, if either player does declare a Mulligan and chooses to restart
the duel, then the other player may also reshuffle and cut his or her
cards. To declare a Mulligan, the player must first show his or her hand
to the opponent before new cards can be drawn. Any time players reshuffle
their cards before a duel begins, they always have the option to declare
a Mulligan as long as they have not already declared one. A player may
declare only one Mulligan per duel.
1.2.10 Card Translation
During sanctioned competition, players will refer to the English version
of a card to settle disputes concerning the interpretation of a card’s
wording or powers.
1.2.11 Errata
All cards will be interpreted using the latest official errata list.
1.2.12 Current Edition
All cards will be interpreted according to the wording on the latest
printed version of the cards.
1.2.13 Forgetting About Upkeep
If a player draws a card for his or her turn without having paid an upkeep
cost, it is assumed that the upkeep cost was not paid and the appropriate
consequences were accepted. For example, most cards bury themselves if the
upkeep cost is not paid, in which case the card is simply buried with no
further penalty to the player.
If a player draws a card for his or her turn without having dealt with one
or more upkeep effects (other than upkeep costs), those effects are dealt
with immediately. If any of the effects involved a decision, then the
player is issued a warning, and the cards that were drawn during the draw
phase are shuffled into the library and replaced.
1.2.14 Intentional Draw
Players engaged in a duel may mutually agree to accept an intentional draw
at any time. This agreement shall not be regarded as a violation of
Standard Floor Rules 1.3 or 1.4, provided: The intentional draw agreement
does NOT remove either player from tournament contention (i.e., neither
player may be mathematically eliminated from the tournament by agreeing to
an intentional draw).
Either player may offer the draw to his or her opponent at any time. The
opponent may then accept or decline. If the offer is declined, the duel
must continue as normal without further inducement or coercion to accept
the offer.
1.2.15 Definition of Terms:
Duel - one game of Magic
Match - three duels of Magic unless otherwise stated
Proxy card - a card that is used during competition to represent another
card
Riffle shuffle - dividing the deck into two halves which are placed end to
end, lifted, and allowed to fall rapidly together and interleave
Cut - removing the top portion of a deck and placing it under the bottom
portion, without looking at the bottom card
Sideboard - Any additional cards that are not part of a player’s deck.
Players may exchange the cards in their sideboard with the cards in their
deck on a one-for-one basis. The sideboard is exactly 15 (fifteen) cards
unless otherwise noted.
2.0 Rules for Magic: The Gathering Constructed-Deck Tournament Play
Classic (Type I), Standard (Type II), Classic Restricted (Type 1.5), Ice
Age Constructed and Ice Age/Alliances Constructed
2.1 Required Materials
In order to participate in a match, players must bring their decks,
sideboards, and DCI membership card to the tournament. A player’s deck
must contain at least 60 (sixty) cards, while his or her sideboard must
contain exactly 15 (fifteen) cards.
2.1.2 Tournament-Legal Decks & Sideboards
Decks which contain less than 60 (sixty) cards, or sideboards which
contain more or less than 15 (fifteen) cards, are not tournament legal;
their use may result in disqualification from current competition. Players
who opt not to have a sideboard must inform their opponent before a match
begins; failure to do so may result in disqualification from current
competition.
2.1.3 Deck & Sideboard Registration
At the judge’s discretion, players may be required to register all decks
and sideboards when they arrive at a tournament. Registration records the
original composition of each deck and sideboard. If the deck and sideboard
are recorded, both must be returned to their original composition before
the beginning of a new match. Thus, cards transferred from a player’s deck
to his or her sideboard, and vice versa, must be returned before the
player begins a new match. Failure to properly register a deck and/or
sideboard or returning a deck and/or sideboard to their original
composition may result in disqualification from current competition.
NOTE: Wizards of the Coast reserves the right to publish contents of decks
and sideboards as well as transcripts or video reproductions of any
sanctioned tournament.
2.1.4 Sideboard Use
Before a match begins, each player must allow his or her opponent to count
the number of cards in the sideboard face down. Before the beginning of
the second or third duel in a match, players may change the composition of
their decks by swapping cards fro m their decks with cards in their
sideboard. Any card exchange must be done on a one-for-one basis to ensure
that the sideboard remains at 15 (fifteen) cards. There are no
restrictions on the number of cards a player may exchange as long as one
card is traded for another. Attempts to alter a deck other than through a
legal sideboard exchange may result in a player’s disqualification from
current and future competition.
2.1.5 Alpha Cards
Players may use cards that have slightly rounder corners (e.g., Alpha
edition cards-Alpha cards are the first section of the print run from the
original limited-edition basic set) as long as their decks are made up
entirely of these cards and as long as all the cards are legal according
the deck-construction rules limiting which card titles are playable. If a
player is using an “Alpha” deck, he or she must notify the judge before
the beginning of the tournament.
2.1.7 New Releases
New releases of Magic: The Gathering (e.g., new expansions or new editions
of the basic set) may not be included in tournaments until 30 (thirty)
days after the retail release date. Premier tournaments (Magic: The
Gathering Pro Tour Qualifiers, Pro Tour, National Championships) taking
place within seven days of a new release date must announce at least 30
(thirty) days prior to the date of the event whether the new release will
be included in their Standard (Type II) list. Multi-day tournaments which
take place during this 30 (thirty) day period may or may not use the new
release. This decision must be announced by the Tournament Officials or
Tournament Organizer prior to the tournament.
2.1.8 Four-card limit
With the exception of basic land cards (Plains, Forest, Mountain, Island,
and Swamp, including snow-covered variants), a player’s deck and sideboard
may not contain more than 4 (four) of any individual card, by card title.
2.1.9 Restricted and Banned Cards
No more than 1 (one) of each of the cards on the Restricted List is
allowed in a tournament deck (including the sideboard). No cards from the
Banned List are allowed in a tournament deck (including the sideboard).
Violation of this rule may result in disqualification from current
competition at the discretion of the Head Judge, and possibly from future
competition at the discretion of the DCI.
The Banned and Restricted Lists are modified periodically by the DCI as
follows:
Classic (Type I) March 1, September 1
Standard (Type II) March 1, June 1, September 1, December 1
Classic Restricted (Type 1.5) is affected by all dates
2.2 Ante
Players may not wager ante.
2.3 Standard (Type II) Deck Construction
Standard (Type II) tournament decks may consist of cards from Magic: The
Gathering, as well as any current extensions of the basic set, all current
limited-edition expansion sets, and all current stand-alone expansion
sets. Players may also include cards from previous printings that appear
in the most current edition as long as they do not have features that
create “marked” cards, such as cards with corners that are rounder than
other cards.
As of September 1, 1996, players may include the following card sets, in
addition to Fourth Edition:
Chronicles
Fallen Empires
Homelands
Ice Age
Alliances
The Duelists’ Convocation International (DCI) will announce changes in the
availability of any limited-edition Magic expansion set at least 90
(ninety) days in advance. Contact the DCI for updated information.
2.3.1 The Restricted List for Standard (Type II) tournaments:
Balance
Black Vise
Hymn to Tourach (FE)
Ivory Tower
Land Tax
Strip Mine
Zuran Orb (IA)
2.3.2 The Banned List for Standard (Type II) tournaments:
Any card not specifically permitted by rule 2.3
Any ante card contained in any newly released card set
Amulet of Quoz (IA)
Bronze Tablet
Channel
Jeweled Bird
Mind Twist
Rebirth
Tempest Efreet
Timmerian Fiends
2.4 Classic (Type I) Deck Construction
Classic (Type I) tournament decks may consist of cards from all editions
of Magic, any extension of the basic set, all promotional cards released
by Wizards of the Coast, and all limited-edition or stand-alone expansion
sets.
2.4.1 The Restricted List for Classic (Type I) tournaments:
Ancestral Recall
Balance
Berserk
Black Lotus
Braingeyser
Candelabra of Tawnos (AQ)
Copy Artifact
Demonic Tutor
Fastbond
Feldon’s Cane (AQ)
Fork
Ivory Tower (AQ)
Library of Alexandria (AN)
Maze of Ith (DK)
Mirror Universe (LE)
Mishra’s Workshop (AQ)
Mox Emerald
Mox Jet
Mox Pearl
Mox Ruby
Mox Sapphire
Recall (LE)
Regrowth
Sol Ring
Timetwister
Time Walk
Underworld Dreams (LE)
Wheel of Fortune
Zuran Orb (IA)
2.4.2 The Banned List for Classic (Type I) tournaments:
Any card not specifically permitted by rule 2.4
Any ante card contained in any newly released card set
Amulet of Quoz (IA)
Bronze Tablet (AQ)
Channel
Chaos Orb
Contract from Below
Darkpact
Demonic Attorney
Divine Intervention (LE)
Falling Star (LE)
Jeweled Bird (AN)
Mind Twist
Rebirth (LE)
Shahrazad (AN)
Tempest Efreet (LE)
Timmerian Fiends (HM)
2.5 Classic Restricted (Type 1.5) Deck Construction:
Classic Restricted (Type 1.5) tournament decks may consist of cards from
all editions of Magic, any extension of the basic set, all promotional
cards released by Wizards of the Coast, and all limited-edition or
stand-alone expansion sets.
2.5.1 The Banned List for Classic Restricted (Type 1.5) tournaments:
Any card not specifically permitted by rule 2.5
Any ante card contained in any newly released card set
Any card appearing on either the Banned or Restricted Lists for Standard
(Type II) or Classic (Type I) tournaments
2.6 Ice Age-Only Deck Construction:
Ice Age tournament decks may consist only of cards from the Magic: The
Gathering �c Age> stand-alone expansion. Players may also include cards
from previous printings that appear in the Ice Age stand-alone expansion,
as long as they do not have features that create “marked” cards, such as
slightly rounder corners.
2.6.1 The Restricted List for Ice Age-only tournaments:
Zuran Orb
2.6.2 The Banned List for Ice Age-only tournaments:
Any card not specifically permitted by rule 2.6
Amulet of Quoz (ante card)
2.7 Ice Age/Alliances Deck Construction:
Ice Age/Alliances tournament decks may consist only of cards from the
Magic: The Gathering �ceA g> stand-alone expansion and the Alliances
limited expansion. Players may also include cards from previous printings
that appear in the Ice Age stand-alone expansion, as long as they do not
have features that create “marked” cards, such as slightly rounder
corners.
2.7.1 The Restricted List for Ice Age/Alliances tournaments:
Zuran Orb
2.7.2 The Banned List for Ice Age/Alliances tournaments:
Any card not specifically permitted by rule 2.7
Amulet of Quoz (ante card)
3.0 Rules for Magic: The Gathering Limited-Environment Tournament Play
Sealed Deck, Ice Age-only Sealed Deck, and Ice Age/Alliances Sealed Deck
3.1 Deck Construction
Prior to the beginning of a tournament, each player will receive a sealed
starter deck of Magic: The Gathering cards, along with various booster
packs, from which they will create a tournament deck. Certain
limited-environment formats permit players to receive booster packs only.
Before players actually assemble their decks, they may be required to open
and register all their cards with a Tournament Official at the Head
Judge’s discretion. Once cards have been registered, players have a
limited amount of time to prepare their decks before play begins. Cards
that are not included in the tournament deck automatically become the
player’s sideboard. Violation of this rule may result in a player’s
disqualification from current and future competition, at the discretion of
the Head Judge and the DCI.
3.1.2 Each deck is required to have a minimum of 40 (forty) cards. Before
a duel begins, players are allowed to count the number of cards in their
opponent’s deck and sideboard to ensure that the number of cards has not
changed since the deck was originally issued. Any discrepancy should be
reported to a Tournament Official and may be grounds for disqualification
from current or future competition, at the discretion of the Head Judge
and the DCI.
3.1.3 Sideboard Use
Players may change the composition of their decks by swapping cards from
their decks with cards in their sideboard before the beginning of a duel.
There are no restrictions on the number of cards a player may exchange as
long as the play deck contains at least 40 (forty) cards. Cards need not
be exchanged on a one-for-one basis. Attempts to alter a deck’s
composition illegally may result in disqualification from current and
future competition, at the discretion of the Head Judge and the DCI.
3.2 Ante
Players may not wager ante during a match.
3.2.1 OPTIONAL: Ante may be required at the discretion of the Tournament
Officials and/or the Head Judge. If ante is required, competitors must
adhere to the following guidelines:
3.2.2 Before any duel begins, players are allowed to count the number of
cards in their opponent’s deck and sideboard to ensure that the number of
cards equals the number of cards originally issued plus any cards won or
lost in ante. Any discrepancy should be reported to a Tournament Official
and may be grounds for disqualification from current and future
competition, at the discretion of the Head Judge and the DCI.
3.2.3 If ante is required, the ante card is the first card selected by a
player’s opponent after the deck has been shuffled and cut. Once it is
selected, the ante card is placed face down on the playing surface before
the first hand is dealt. Cards won as ante are considered part of a
player’s sideboard and may be introduced into a player’s deck prior to the
beginning of a duel.
3.2.4 If ante is not used, players may be required to reset their deck to
its initial registered composition before each match begins. If ante is in
use, players may use any initial configuration of their deck, which
contains at least 40 (forty) cards and is made up of cards from the deck
plus sideboard plus ante won.
3.3 Sealed-Deck tournament decks will consist of a number of cards
determined by Tournament Officials prior to the tournament. The DCI
suggests a combination of decks or boosters totaling 90 to 300 cards.
3.4 Rules for Booster-Draft Tournament Play
3.4.1 Player Seating
Players assemble into circles of roughly equal size, under the direction
of a Tournament official, with no more than eight players per group.
Tournament Officials will distribute a predetermined number of Magic: The
Gathering booster packs to each player.
3.4.2 Drafting
At a signal from a Tournament Official (for example, “Open the first of
your Fourth Edition boosters…”) each player opens one (1) of the booster
packs and looks at the cards. The player chooses one (1) card from the
booster pack, then passes the remaining cards, face down, to the player
on his or her left. All remaining cards must be passed face down during
the entire draft cycle.
3.4.3 Once all cards in the booster pack have been chosen, a Tournament
Official will instruct players to open another booster pack (“Open your
next Fourth Edition booster…”) and draft in the same fashion, except the
direction of drafting is reversed. This process is repeated until all
cards in all booster packs have been drafted.
3.4.4 Ante cards are not permitted in the Booster-Draft format. All ante
cards in initial boosters are replaced by a Tournament Official from a
random stack of cards.
3.4.5 Deck Construction
Once all cards have been drafted, a Tournament Official will announce a 30
(thirty) minute deck-construction period. Players may not trade cards with
one another during the deck-construction period.
3.4.6 Players may add as many basic lands as needed to play a minimum 40
(forty) card deck (no maximum is imposed). Tournament Officials will
supply all land. Any drafted cards not used in the tournament deck will
function as the sideboard.
3.4.7 Due to the natural limiting effect of Booster-Draft play, there are
neither Restricted nor Banned Lists for this style of tournament.
David Johnson
unread,
Oct 24, 1996, 7:00:00 AM 10/24/96
Delete
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to
goss…@course1.harvard.edu (Michael Gosselin) wrote:
1.2.13 Forgetting About Upkeep
If a player draws a card for his or her turn without having paid an upkeep
cost, it is assumed that the upkeep cost was not paid and the appropriate
consequences were accepted. For example, most cards bury themselves if the
upkeep cost is not paid, in which case the card is simply buried with no
further penalty to the player.
If a player draws a card for his or her turn without having dealt with one
or more upkeep effects (other than upkeep costs), those effects are dealt
with immediately. If any of the effects involved a decision, then the
player is issued a warning, and the cards that were drawn during the draw
phase are shuffled into the library and replaced.
Why a “warning” in the latter case and an arbitrary rule in the
former case? It would be possible to build a strategy aroung
deliberately using the former rule. Upkeep payments are usually
negative, but some can be helpful in the right circumstances.
Isn’t it inapropriate for an outside-game error to be punished by
an inside-game rule? Its like saying “Whenever a player insults
a judge that player must discard a card”. You could make it
work for you. (You’d probably need a “standard insult” to use
if you were the quiet type - one that didn’t cause offence).
David
Paul Barclay
unread,
Oct 25, 1996, 7:00:00 AM 10/25/96
Delete
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to
In article 54o870$1…@nuntius.u-net.netdav…@msol.u-net.com (David
Johnson) writes:
goss…@course1.harvard.edu (Michael Gosselin) wrote:
1.2.13 Forgetting About Upkeep
If a player draws a card for his or her turn without having paid an upkeep
cost, it is assumed that the upkeep cost was not paid and the appropriate
consequences were accepted. For example, most cards bury themselves if the
upkeep cost is not paid, in which case the card is simply buried with no
further penalty to the player.
Oh boy. I can get rid of my Cosmic Horror without it damaging me “simply
buried with no effect to the player”. Somebody had a serious case of brain
fart (or did they want it to work that way? We just don’t know).
If a player draws a card for his or her turn without having dealt with one
or more upkeep effects (other than upkeep costs), those effects are dealt
with immediately. If any of the effects involved a decision, then the
player is issued a warning, and the cards that were drawn during the draw
phase are shuffled into the library and replaced.
Hey - Ernham Djinn and Sylvan library. What a combo - “forget to use the
Djinn’s upkeep effect and get 3 new cards from the library”.
Why a “warning” in the latter case and an arbitrary rule in the
former case? It would be possible to build a strategy aroung
deliberately using the former rule. Upkeep payments are usually
negative, but some can be helpful in the right circumstances.
Also, what happens when you get a warning? are there any more severe
penalties? (obviously, but they aren’t included in the (quoted) rules)
Isn’t it inapropriate for an outside-game error to be punished by
an inside-game rule? Its like saying “Whenever a player insults
a judge that player must discard a card”. You could make it
work for you. (You’d probably need a “standard insult” to use
if you were the quiet type - one that didn’t cause offence).
Yes, but they haven’t thought of a better way of doing it (neither have I, but
that’s beside the point).
Paul Barclay.
Thomas R Wylie
unread,
Oct 30, 1996, 8:00:00 AM 10/30/96
Delete
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to
Paul Barclay PB…@cam.ac.uk wrote:
is David Johnson
If a player draws a card for his or her turn without having paid an upkeep
cost, it is assumed that the upkeep cost was not paid and the appropriate
consequences were accepted. For example, most cards bury themselves if the
upkeep cost is not paid, in which case the card is simply buried with no
further penalty to the player.
Oh boy. I can get rid of my Cosmic Horror without it damaging me “simply
buried with no effect to the player”. Somebody had a serious case of brain
fart (or did they want it to work that way? We just don’t know).
Read the rule again: for example, most cards bury themselves if the upkeep
cost is not paid, in which case the card is simply buried. In the case of
Cosmic Horror, the appropriate consequences are to take damage as well
as burying Cosmic Horror.
If a player draws a card for his or her turn without having dealt with one
or more upkeep effects (other than upkeep costs), those effects are dealt
with immediately. If any of the effects involved a decision, then the
player is issued a warning, and the cards that were drawn during the draw
phase are shuffled into the library and replaced.
Hey - Ernham Djinn and Sylvan library. What a combo - “forget to use the
Djinn’s upkeep effect and get 3 new cards from the library”.
Once. If you get a duplicate warning, you are ejected from the tournament.
Why a “warning” in the latter case and an arbitrary rule in the
former case? It would be possible to build a strategy aroung
deliberately using the former rule. Upkeep payments are usually
negative, but some can be helpful in the right circumstances.
The type of penalty resulting from an infraction depends on several fators,
including the odds that the player is cheating rather than just being an
idiot, how easy it is to apply an ingame penalty rather than something that
goes on their record (for the tournament, anyway) and so on. Players who
“forget” an upkeep cost are almost always just being stupid - for example,
they’re in a bind so are more interested in what they draw than what’s
in play - whereas players who draw extra cards are more likely to be trying
to cheat - how hard is it to only pick up one card?
And if failing to pay an upkeep would have been beneficial, you presumably
would have just decided not to pay it, so enforcing the rule doesn’t
really change anything.
Isn’t it inapropriate for an outside-game error to be punished by
an inside-game rule?…
Ignoring your upkeep costs in order to draw your card is an inside-game
error…
Tom Wylie rec.games.trading-cards.* Network Representative for
aa…@cats.ucsc.edu Wizards of the Coast, Inc.
Petri Juhani Piira
unread,
Nov 1, 1996, 8:00:00 AM 11/1/96
Delete
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to
In article 5587t2$4…@darkstar.ucsc.edu,
Thomas R Wylie aa…@cats.ucsc.edu wrote:
Paul Barclay PB…@cam.ac.uk wrote:
Hey - Ernham Djinn and Sylvan library. What a combo - “forget to use the
Djinn’s upkeep effect and get 3 new cards from the library”.
Once. If you get a duplicate warning, you are ejected from the tournament.
Okay, so this is an official permission?
I.e. if one has a sylvan / erhnam combo out,
one can accept a warning to get three new cards from the library.
Are there other well defined rules where one can accept non-game
situation related consequences to get an advantage in the game?
Or rules which forbid them?
Picking nits, yes, but I think the above way does not make any sense.
One should not be allowed to get extra advantage for purposefully
forgetting to do something.
Ignoring your upkeep costs in order to draw your card is an inside-game
error…
And doing it on purpose allows one to trade an outside of game effect
for inside game advantage :-(
Petri
Mike Marcelais
unread,
Nov 2, 1996, 8:00:00 AM 11/2/96
Delete
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to
Petri Juhani Piira pp…@delta.hut.fi wrote in article
| In article 5587t2$4…@darkstar.ucsc.edu,
| Thomas R Wylie aa…@cats.ucsc.edu wrote:
| >
| >Paul Barclay PB…@cam.ac.uk wrote:
|
| >>Hey - Ernham Djinn and Sylvan library. What a combo - “forget to use the
| >>Djinn’s upkeep effect and get 3 new cards from the library”.
|
| >Once. If you get a duplicate warning, you are ejected from the tournament.
|
| Okay, so this is an official permission?
|
| I.e. if one has a sylvan / erhnam combo out,
| one can accept a warning to get three new cards from the library.
I think that the DCI should treat this as a very serious offence. My opinion
of it matches very closesly how the ACBL views intentional violation of bridge
rules:
72.B.1: General Principles/Infraction of Law/Intentional
To infringe a law intentionally is a serious breach of propriety, even if
there is a prescribed penalty that one is willing to pay.
--
+————————+———————-+
| Mike Marcelais | Excel Developer and |
| mich…@microsoft.com | Magic Rules Guru |
+————————+———————-+
| Opinions expressed in this post are mine, and |
| do not necessarily reflect those of Microsoft |
+–= Moonstone Dragon =—————= UDIC =–+
David Johnson
unread,
Nov 4, 1996, 8:00:00 AM 11/4/96
Delete
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to
“Mike Marcelais” mich…@microsoft.com wrote:
I think that the DCI should treat this as a very serious offence. My opinion
of it matches very closesly how the ACBL views intentional violation of bridge
rules:
72.B.1: General Principles/Infraction of Law/Intentional
To infringe a law intentionally is a serious breach of propriety, even if
there is a prescribed penalty that one is willing to pay.
“72.B.1” ??
Now there’s a good example of a game that was really screwed
up by too many rules. I sometimes wonder if MtG will / is
getting that way.
Stuart Smith
unread,
Nov 5, 1996, 8:00:00 AM 11/5/96
Delete
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to
In article 6…@nuntius.u-net.net, dav…@msol.u-net.com (David Johnson) writes:
“Mike Marcelais” mich…@microsoft.com wrote:
I think that the DCI should treat this as a very serious offence. My opinion
of it matches very closesly how the ACBL views intentional violation of bridge
rules:
72.B.1: General Principles/Infraction of Law/Intentional
“72.B.1” ??
Now there’s a good example of a game that was really screwed
up by too many rules. I sometimes wonder if MtG will / is
getting that way.
I bet that the majority of the rules of ACBL tournament bridge play have
to do with tournaments, not with playing bridge. Magic rules are actually
getting simpler in many ways. I would guess that DCI tournament Magic
rules will get more complicated. The reason is that people will use any
loopholes in the rules to their advantage, justifiably so, even if the
intent of the rule is thereby foiled. I think the rule about draws by
collusion being legal if both players are not hurt by the agreement is a
bad rule that will be changed. More significantly, more rules will be
written about what is considered sportsmanlike, fair and appropriate. Rules
about fairness in assigning opponents during a tournament may also come
up (Chess rules are long and detailed on this topic).
I understand that the game rules for Magic can get very difficult to apply
in complex cases, but the proliferation of rules for fair DCI tournament
play is a different matter and need not affect informal play at all.
Stuart Smith
David Johnson
unread,
Nov 6, 1996, 8:00:00 AM 11/6/96
Delete
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to
“Mike Marcelais” mich…@microsoft.com wrote:
I think that the DCI should treat this as a very serious offence. My opinion
of it matches very closesly how the ACBL views intentional violation of bridge
rules:
72.B.1: General Principles/Infraction of Law/Intentional
To infringe a law intentionally is a serious breach of propriety, even if
there is a prescribed penalty that one is willing to pay.
“72.B.1” ??
George W. Bayles
unread,
Nov 7, 1996, 8:00:00 AM 11/7/96
Delete
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to
Stuart Smith (stu…@gold.gvg.tek.com) wrote:
- [snip]
… I think the rule about draws by
collusion being legal if both players are not hurt by the agreement is a
bad rule that will be changed. … Exactly what do you think is bad about it? Chess tried and failed miserably
at banning “grandmaster” draws. If there’s a problem with any two players
agreeing to a draw for whatever reason the two players see fit, the real
problem will be found in the tournament organization.
Petri Juhani Piira
unread,
Nov 7, 1996, 8:00:00 AM 11/7/96
Delete
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to
In article <01bbc85f$3ca03040$ba27379d@michmarc2>,
Mike Marcelais mich…@microsoft.com wrote:
Petri Juhani Piira pp…@delta.hut.fi wrote:
| Thomas R Wylie aa…@cats.ucsc.edu wrote:
| >Paul Barclay PB…@cam.ac.uk wrote:
| >>Hey - Ernham Djinn and Sylvan library. What a combo - “forget to use the
| >>Djinn’s upkeep effect and get 3 new cards from the library”.
| >Once. If you get a duplicate warning, you are ejected from the tournament.
| Okay, so this is an official permission?
I think that the DCI should treat this as a very serious offence. My opinion
of it matches very closesly how the ACBL views intentional violation of bridge
rules:
To infringe a law intentionally is a serious breach of propriety, even if
there is a prescribed penalty that one is willing to pay.
I agree - but how a judge can differentiate an innocent forgetting
from a planned one? (And in a way which can be considered fair, not
arbitrary).
It would be much more clear, if the offender just had to return to
his upkeep and do things properly including the resetting of all sylvan
draws / payments etc, instead of this rule which can lead to problems…
opponent could call if he wished to have the deck shuffled etc.
Petri
Robert S Schwartz
unread,
Nov 7, 1996, 8:00:00 AM 11/7/96
Delete
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to
There HAS to be a rule allowing both players to accept a draw. There
are so many ways in which a stalemate can occur - the infamous
‘Island Sanctuaries Forever’ example leaps to mind. In chess it’s
the same thing… I have a King, you have a King. King to QB3. Your
turn… yawn…
- Metamorph
Mike Marcelais
unread,
Nov 8, 1996, 8:00:00 AM 11/8/96
Delete
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to
| I agree - but how a judge can differentiate an innocent forgetting
| from a planned one? (And in a way which can be considered fair, not
| arbitrary).
Well, applying a penalty that makes more sence. In this case, the offender
knows what the top two cards of the library are, so shuffle the rest of the
library leaving the top two cards intact. Give the choice of which of the
three options to do (shuffle entire library, shuffle all but top two, do
nothing) to the non-offending player, etc. Basically, take control AWAY from
the offending party.
Stuart Smith
unread,
Nov 8, 1996, 8:00:00 AM 11/8/96
Delete
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to
In article b…@ringer.cs.utsa.edu, gba…@ringer.cs.utsa.edu (George W. Bayles) writes:
Stuart Smith (stu…@gold.gvg.tek.com) wrote:
- [snip]
… I think the rule about draws by
collusion being legal if both players are not hurt by the agreement is a
bad rule that will be changed. …
Exactly what do you think is bad about it? Chess tried and failed miserably
at banning “grandmaster” draws. If there’s a problem with any two players
agreeing to a draw for whatever reason the two players see fit, the real
problem will be found in the tournament organization.
First of all, let me make it clear that I thnk that some rules are difficult
to enforce. Certainly chess grandmasters could play a game and
intentionally come to a draw without making their intent public.
My problem is that I feel this rule is contrary to the spirit of the
tournament, which assumes that each player should always play to win.
It’s clearly not sportsmanlike to bribe your opponent to concede the match to
you, or to report the results as a 3-0 sweep when you only won by a 2-1
margin.
If you are playing on a team of magic players (and not all people playing at
the tournament are on teams) it is improper to concede a match to a teammate.
The reason all of these actions are improper is that it provides a player
with an advantage that is not determined by their skill and unfairly penalizes
other competitors who are playing hard to win each game.
I agree that the “legal draw by agreement” rule is less onerous than the
previous examples, but it still has the same effect. Other players who are
still playing hard to win are hurt by the draw, because both players who
draw are guaranteed to keep high rankings in the tournament when a fairly
played match may have put one of them at risk of losing his tournament
position to another player who is fighting hard to come up in the ranks.
I also object on separate grounds to a rule that requires that you be able
to interpret the phrase “if both players are not hurt by the agreement”.
[This is not the exact phrasing.] This makes some matches unequal, in that
the strategy of offering a collusional draw is added to normal match play
strategy at a later stage in the tournament. Why add this complication?
Further, in some tournaments, it may take specific knowledge of the scores of
competitors to determine if the collusion is legal. This strikes me as
awkward at best.
Stuart Smith
Jim Hamp
unread,
Nov 8, 1996, 8:00:00 AM 11/8/96
Delete
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to
How about they should be legal as long as no other player is hurt by the
collusion? Situation…two players are 4-0 at the last match of a 5
round Swiss. I am 3-1, but would win a tiebreak with either. 7 others
are 4-0. They deliberately draw, I’m out. This should not be legal.
OTOH, if they’re both in no matter what, and don’t want to take time to
play since every one else is done, there should be no problem.
The “no one gets hurt” situation should be legal.
Hampster
Charles J Poirier - Archslob of the Unclean
unread,
Nov 10, 1996, 8:00:00 AM 11/10/96
Delete
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to
Mike Marcelais mich…@microsoft.com wrote:
| I agree - but how a judge can differentiate an innocent forgetting
| from a planned one? (And in a way which can be considered fair, not
| arbitrary).
… Give the choice of which of the
three options to do (shuffle entire library, shuffle all but top two, do
nothing) to the non-offending player, etc. Basically, take control AWAY from
the offending party.
I agree, but I’d go a step further, in order to really discourage such
deliberate rule-bending:
Allow the opponent to look at as many top-of-deck and bottom-of-deck
cards, as the active player knows the identity of after the infraction.
[This information is easy enough to reconstruct in most cases.] [You have
to include the bottom of the deck to avoid abuse of Soldevi Digger, Dream
Cache, and so on.] Then opponent gets to decide whether to shuffle all,
none, or any contiguous portion, of the player’s deck. Any player who can
abuse that is a better cheater than I!
Cheers,
Charles Poirier
Daniel M Gray
unread,
Nov 11, 1996, 8:00:00 AM 11/11/96
Delete
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to
Jim Hamp jkh…@deimos.frii.com writes:
How about they should be legal as long as no other player is hurt by the
collusion? Situation…two players are 4-0 at the last match of a 5
round Swiss. I am 3-1, but would win a tiebreak with either. 7 others
are 4-0. They deliberately draw, I’m out. This should not be legal.
OTOH, if they’re both in no matter what, and don’t want to take time to
play since every one else is done, there should be no problem.
Currently, the rule says you can draw as long as the draw would not
eliminate both of the players from contention for winning the
tournament(this is usually interpreted to mean, in pro tourney play and
qualifiers, that if it eliminates someone from making the top eight, it’s
illegal). The rule is most often used in three situations in my experience
- When two friends meet in very early rounds and do not want to knock each
other out(I’ve seen friends paired randomly in round 1 intentionally draw
several times), 2) In the final round when the players who are guaranteed to
make top eight don’t want to take the time to play. This is usually one
pair, and even if they had played wouldn’t have knocked the loser out of the
top eight, and 3)(the one most people seem to have a problem with), two
players with good records draw to avoid the possibility of knocking each
other out, although neither player is yet guaranteed a slot in the top
eight(this usually happens in the mid-rounds, anywhere between about round
three and the second-to-last round of the Swiss).
I have mixed feelings on the rules. On the positive side, it
reduces(ore liminates) the necessity of devoting judge manpower to policing
“collusion” of this type. It also has well-established precedents as an
accepted practice(most notably in chess). On the negative side, the
intentional draw rule seems to “hurt” other people in a passive way by
increasing the chances of drawing players of succeeding and decreasing the
chances of (losing) playing players from making it. Whether this is an
acutality or an illusion, or sometimes both, I don’t know, but this is the
main argument I see against the draw rule. Chess players have never seemed
to have a big problem with it. There are basically arguments for and against
the thing. I, as a judge, personally like the rule since I don’t have to be
constantly on the look out for players who intentionall draw during play by
stalling, contrived mutual destruction, or other such silliness which went
on before the draw rule came into effect(there were several cases of this at
U.S. Nationals this year– matches that could have been resolved except for
exceedingly slow play by both participants forcing a draw due to time
running out).
Dan Gray
Jim Hamp
unread,
Nov 12, 1996, 8:00:00 AM 11/12/96
Delete
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to
On 11 Nov 1996, Daniel M Gray wrote:
Jim Hamp jkh…@deimos.frii.com writes:
How about they should be legal as long as no other player is hurt by the
collusion? Situation…two players are 4-0 at the last match of a 5
round Swiss. I am 3-1, but would win a tiebreak with either. 7 others
are 4-0. They deliberately draw, I’m out. This should not be legal.
OTOH, if they’re both in no matter what, and don’t want to take time to
play since every one else is done, there should be no problem.
Currently, the rule says you can draw as long as the draw would not
eliminate both of the players from contention for winning the
tournament(this is usually interpreted to mean, in pro tourney play and
qualifiers, that if it eliminates someone from making the top eight, it’s
illegal). The rule is most often used in three situations in my experience
- When two friends meet in very early rounds and do not want to knock each
other out(I’ve seen friends paired randomly in round 1 intentionally draw
several times), 2) In the final round when the players who are guaranteed to
make top eight don’t want to take the time to play. This is usually one
pair, and even if they had played wouldn’t have knocked the loser out of the
top eight, and 3)(the one most people seem to have a problem with), two
players with good records draw to avoid the possibility of knocking each
other out, although neither player is yet guaranteed a slot in the top
eight(this usually happens in the mid-rounds, anywhere between about round
three and the second-to-last round of the Swiss).
What about when it would knock a third player out of contention as above
(where, BTW, I should have said 6 others at 4-0, not 7)?
I have mixed feelings on the rules. On the positive side, it
reduces(ore liminates) the necessity of devoting judge manpower to policing
“collusion” of this type. It also has well-established precedents as an
accepted practice(most notably in chess). On the negative side, the
intentional draw rule seems to “hurt” other people in a passive way by
increasing the chances of drawing players of succeeding and decreasing the
chances of (losing) playing players from making it. Whether this is an
acutality or an illusion, or sometimes both, I don’t know, but this is the
main argument I see against the draw rule. Chess players have never seemed
to have a big problem with it.
Very seldom do you see collusion draws in Swiss format chess tournaments.
And the Swiss in chess doesn’t lead to a final eight. The players will
agree to a draw after playing, if it’s an obvious draw, but seldom do you
see it done before move 1. I still believe the rule about no one getting
eliminated should extend to third parties. Though you are probably
correct that the players would simply draw anyway through some collusive
play.
Hampster
STEVEN L FORSYTHE
unread,
Nov 13, 1996, 8:00:00 AM 11/13/96
Delete
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to
In article Pine.BSF.3.91.961108…@deimos.frii.com Jim Hamp jkh…@deimos.frii.com writes:
From: Jim Hamp jkh…@deimos.frii.com
Subject: Re: Should draws by collusion be legal?
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 1996 13:29:15 -0700
How about they should be legal as long as no other player is hurt by the
collusion? Situation…two players are 4-0 at the last match of a 5
round Swiss. I am 3-1, but would win a tiebreak with either. 7 others
are 4-0. They deliberately draw, I’m out. This should not be legal.
OTOH, if they’re both in no matter what, and don’t want to take time to
play since every one else is done, there should be no problem.
The “no one gets hurt” situation should be legal.
If aggreeing to a draw is in the best interest of both players, then they
should be allowed to agree to a draw. You see this all the time at chess
tournaments. The leading player needs a draw to be sure of winning, his/her
opponent wants a draw to get a class prize or to tie for 1st.
IF you play a match 2-1 and then report 3-0…. that is simplying lying about
the results and should disqualify the player(s) involved.
Likewise, conceding all three games after a friend or teammate wins the first
game is unfair to other players.
Ideally, the format of the tournament should help encourage players to act
appropriately. For example, scoring 3 pts for a win and 1 for a draw
encourages players who have little time for the second and third games to
each resign one game (or flip a coin). It is to BOTH players advantage to
complete three games.
I liked the +1 for a win, -1 for a loss scoring method. It allows slower
decks which loss less often to compete. Also, since the leaders can lose
points, the outcome is not often predeturmined before the final match.
George W. Bayles
unread,
Nov 15, 1996, 8:00:00 AM 11/15/96
Delete
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to
- Jim Hamp (jkh…@deimos.frii.com) wrote:
On 11 Nov 1996, Daniel M Gray wrote:
-
Jim Hamp jkh…@deimos.frii.com writes:
-
How about they should be legal as long as no other player is hurt by the
-
collusion? Situation…two players are 4-0 at the last match of a 5
-
round Swiss. I am 3-1, but would win a tiebreak with either. 7 others
-
are 4-0. They deliberately draw, I’m out. This should not be legal.
Yes it should be legal. Trying to prevent players that both gain from a draw
from drawing is futile. Organized Chess tried to for years before giving up.
What’s wrong is using single elimination after swiss instead of just playing
3 more rounds of swiss. Look what happens if they all draw - you’d be just a
half point behind with 3 rounds to go. Assuming you get paired up with the
group at 3.5, you’ll win the tourny if you just keep winning! Work it out.
- [snip]
Very seldom do you see collusion draws in Swiss format chess tournaments.
And the Swiss in chess doesn’t lead to a final eight. The players will
agree to a draw after playing, if it’s an obvious draw, but seldom do you
see it done before move 1. I still believe the rule about no one getting
eliminated should extend to third parties. Though you are probably
correct that the players would simply draw anyway through some collusive
play.
Stop calling rational decisions that are legal under current rules collusion.
The reason you seldom see draws agreed to before play in Swiss chess tournys
is because, as you correctly observed, they play swiss for the entire tourny.
The current practice in Magic of using swiss to qualify for the limited
- elimination rounds is just stupid.
Hampster
KA FUNG
unread,
Nov 15, 1996, 8:00:00 AM 11/15/96
Delete
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to
Jim Hamp jkh…@deimos.frii.com writes:
How about they should be legal as long as no other player is hurt by the
collusion? Situation…two players are 4-0 at the last match of a 5
round Swiss. I am 3-1, but would win a tiebreak with either. 7 others
are 4-0. They deliberately draw, I’m out. This should not be legal.
How are you going to stop them to draw intentionally? They can simply
mana burn themselves to death, and there’s nothing the judges can do about
it. (unless you ban mana burn, and that would be ridiculous)
othe…@aol.com
unread,
Nov 24, 1996, 8:00:00 AM 11/24/96
Delete
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to
Dan Gray states that chess players seem to have no problem
with the draw by collusion, but fails to mention that should a Tournament
Director believe that it was an arranged draw without an attempt at play
he can give both players a loss. Drawn games in chess are a lot more
likely
to occur in chess by position than in magic, hence players may agree to a
draw but this is not as likely in magic where draws are by mutual death,
not
by a stalemate where neither side can change the situation without a
blunder
by the other.
lonou…@aol.com
unread,
Nov 25, 1996, 8:00:00 AM 11/25/96
Delete
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to
Just for the record this is not chess, football, squash, or underwater
basket weaving. THIS IS MAGIC! I am so sick of people comparing this past
time to other games and sports. The ruling bodies down at Wotc can do as
they please (they usually do) but I do not and never will like collusion.
I think it is a crock. All players should be made to play all their
matches for the entire day.
Not meaning to offend those of you that like collusion or have
practiced collusion, but you all suck. Have a nice day
Bahama Papa
0 new messages