A little Problem

Discussion in 'CPA/WOTC Magic Issues' started by Neo_Keo, Oct 8, 2001.

  1. Neo_Keo -=[I]=- []2ice |Voodles

    I just thought aboutt this little incident that happen to me at an IBC qualifier. It was the 3rd game and I was playing against a land destruction deck ( R/G/W ) I as down to 10 life and my opponent starts to tapp all his land and say he's Urza's Raging me for 10. I look over his permenants and realize that he only has 9 source of mana and 2 familiars. 1 shy of killing me. I pointed this out to him and the only thing he said was "Great now you know my hand " I proceed to play and won the game with in a few turns.

    My question is he tapped his lands for 9 mana into his pool I know he should have burned for 9 and he didn't ask me if its ok to take the mana back. Should I have pointed out that he should have burned for 9 or was it right to let it go ?
  2. FoundationOfRancor The Gunslinger

    It was right to let it go.
  3. Gizmo Composite: 1860

    Its a gray area.

    1) if your opponent announced the spell before tapping his mana then he woudnt take burn anyway. If you are playing technically now you announce your spell and determine your legality to do so prior to tapping mana.

    ie: Tap a mountain, declare 'Ill Shock your Galina`s Knight', leaves you open to mana burn when your opponent points out its an illegal play. You get a warning and take burn.

    But you can legally declare 'I`ll Shock your Galina`s Knight' then only tap the mana once the spell is going onto the stack. In this case you take a warning, but your mana pool is empty so you are not open to taking to burn.

    2) Depending on the rules level for the event/laxity of the judge, he or she may not force your opponent to take mana burn or recieve a warning.

    3) Generally forcing mana burn is a sign that you intend on playing hardball to the rules. If you are going to do so, then be prepared to get just as badly burnt if you dont know the rules A-Z, letter and verse.


    In the end though its up to you. Its a moral question - how much do you want to win?
    To some people the eighth deadly sin is Ruleslawyering, to others the rules are there to be played to and if you allow takebacks you are leaving yourself open to people trying to cheat, knowing that at worse they`ll simply be stopped from doing it and not recieve any punishment for trying to cheat.
  4. Zadok001 CPA Founder, Greater Good

    If he did tap land, and THEN announced the Rage, it is definately within your rights to say he should take mana burn. If it was reversed, then it's an illegal play to begin with, and the game reverts to the point just before he declared the spell (i.e., land untaps and mana pool is emptied, and all events triggering off the spell being played are removed from where ever they go before going on the stack). It WAS a REL 3 event, after all. Now, if I were in your place, I would have allowed him to take back the mana. But I have met several players who would not, and I wouldn't hold it against them. Your opponent DID make an error, and errors DO lose games. Holding them to that error will likely make them a better player, but it's really a question of personal ethics. I'm not sure what the "official" stance on that would be (i.e., the stance of a watching judge), but I know at REL 4 and REL 5, the player would be required to take the burn or spend the mana in some other way. REL 3, not so sure...

    (Interestingly, I absolutely REFUSE to allow that type of take-back if someone is playtesting against me. The actual result of the game doesn't matter in that case (except for Win/Loss ratios), but my opponent will quickly learn to count his mana ahead of time, and will therefore perform better in tournaments.)
  5. Duel Has Less Posts Than Spiderman

    I wouldn't have enforced the mana burn. But you could have.

    I'm with Zadok. I'm stricter in playtesting and free play than otherwise, because that's when you need to learn how to play the deck.
  6. Spiderman CPA Man in Tights, Dopey Administrative Assistant

    Zadok pretty much says it all :)
  7. Neo_Keo -=[I]=- []2ice |Voodles

    thnx a lot guys :):)

Share This Page