This subject came up in
February judge meeting - discussed situations, and some of the proposed approaches feel a bit “exploit prone” to me. I would like to engage in a little edge-finding exercise to figure out just how far a player is allowed to take this.
The issue is that (according to some but not all judges) AP
retroactively gets to decide the game is in his second main phase. The premise is that AP has control over his turn and that it's NAP's responsibility to ask for clarification in case of ambiguity.
(I originally planned on quoting the relevant parts of the February judge meeting but would mean quoting half the thread. Why didn't I just keep posting in that thread, then? Well… it was a choice between two evils.)I believe it's considered “tech” among Vintage players to declare a null attack even if you have no creatures if you're holding
Mana Drain (or want to bluff it) and you want to carry over the mana to your next turn. If I understand correctly what's been said here, the “correct” play is instead to
not declare a null attack at all (unless you want to bluff), and if you end up
Mana Draining something, simply say “Go.” Your opponent might then mistakenly assume that you forgot your trigger and “wisely” keep his mouth shut about it, and then you get to spring the trigger at the start of M1 in your next turn.
Also, (not that it sees Competitive play, but)
Maddening Imp got a little more awkward:
AP: I tap these two
Llanowar Elves for mana to cast this
Elvish Visionary, draw, go.
NAP: I tap my
Maddening Imp. Please attack with everything.
AP: What?! Oh, uhm… well, you can't do that! You see, this was M2.
Judge: Indeed. Carry on.
Thoughts?
Edited Jochem van 't Hull (April 25, 2014 05:40:47 AM)