(This question is based off of a conversation I had with some players at my LGS on Friday.)

You're judging at a competitive REL event when two players, Andy and Nathan, call you to their table. It's round 1, game 1. Looking at the board, you can see that Nathan has a tapped Dakra Mystic and a Spirit of the Labyrinth in play. He explains that on his opponent's upkeep, he activated the Mystic's ability and chose to let both players draw the card before letting Andy move to his draw step. Andy then (illegally) drew his card for the turn and you were called.

This, of course, is standard GPE - Drawing Extra Cards. You issue Andy a game loss, remind him to be more mindful of gamestate, and move on.

Next round, it happens again.
And again.
And again.

How do you address the issue? Is this something we are able or supposed to address? While all the plays Nathan is making are technically legal, the way he times it (always on the upkeep) is clearly intended to trip up his opponents into illegally drawing an extra card.

how do you address the issue? you went over it: when the player illegally
draws an extra card, issue them a game loss. there is no other issue at
hand; if a player is so lucky as to have all his opponents fall for his
trap, that's not something to penalize, it's something to be rewarded (with
free game wins).

Sam has it straight: the player is allowed to play that deck, and he is allowed to play his cards in that way. If his opponent draws in his draw step without confirming the draw after having drawn in his upkeep, then he will get Game Loss. I've never seen a player get two Game Losses for drawing under Spirit in a tournament, as they learn to confirm their draws really quickly - and if they do that, no Game Loss.

For what it is worth, this is a situation which has popped up as a theory repeatedly since these two cards were released, but which I have never heard of actually happening. Probably because you have a shaky deck which might possibly get you some free game wins if everything goes perfectly, but which otherwise is a bit confused.

Edited Kim Warren (June 23, 2014 06:12:40 AM)

This sounds to me like someone exploiting their knowledge of the MTR and IPG to gain an advantage. While technically not illegal, I've noticed other competitive players exploiting their knowledge of those rules in a similar fashion, and I wish there was something in either of these documents that addressed “rules lawyering” in that way.

With more rules to “lawyer” the more of a problem it would be. Gamer's are
always going to try to game the system. Pick and choose your battles. This
should not be one of them.

Originally posted by Paul Comeau:

This sounds to me like someone exploiting their knowledge of the MTR and IPG to gain an advantage. While technically not illegal, I've noticed other competitive players exploiting their knowledge of those rules in a similar fashion, and I wish there was something in either of these documents that addressed “rules lawyering” in that way.

Players in competitive gaming tournaments are there to win. They can (and most of them actualy will) use do whatever it “legally” takes to be the winner.

Making a game play that has a greater potential to cause an opponent to commit an infraction that leads to a game loss do not violate the rules of tourmanent play even if the player is doing it on purpose hoping that it leads to game loss.

This topic has come up locally, and in various circles, and I have to admit, I'm a bit … well, “flummoxed” comes to mind, but that won't translate well. Puzzled, perhaps?

Often, this question is phrased as “ohnoes a player could win a game this way!!!” - as if that's a bad thing.

There is nothing wrong with laying a trap for your opponent, even one that - as Eric noted - increases their chance of making a mistake. If that mistake happens to result in an infraction, then we - as neutral arbiters - apply the appropriate penalty and remedy, per the IPG. The educational aspect of those penalties will, hopefully, allow that player to avoid repeating that mistake.

Through the history of Magic, there have been a few such cards that make it easier to set such traps. Braids, Cabal Minion - that one actually inspired some policy adjustments! Even Akroan Horse, as a more recent example, is likely to generate a few Missed Trigger Warnings for your opponents; thankfully, the Education of that Warning tends to prevent repeated & upgraded penalties…

Anyway, my point: THIS IS NOT A BAD THING, nor is it something we need to “fix”.

(And I'll predict that this happens 10 times in our imagination for every time it happens in real life. Or maybe it's more like 100 to 1…)

d:^D

Edited Scott Marshall (June 23, 2014 11:37:39 AM)

There isn't a problem with Nathan doing this–it's allowed behavior.

However, in general, if many players are repeatedly making the same mistake, especially over the course of multiple events, it's often worth reminding them. If players in my events kept forgetting to put their names on their decklists, or were continually tardy, or constantly resolved a particular card incorrectly, I'd likely add something to my opening announcements in future events to educate them. If DEC infractions due to Spirit of the Labyrinth kept showing up, that's something I might consider a reminder about.

That said, I very much doubt that Nathan's going to get enough traction with this trick for it to get to that point. Word is likely to spread fairly quickly through the event about the jerk trying to trick his opponents with Spirit of the Labyrinth, so future opponents may be on their guard already, and if Nathan tries it in another event he's likely to get a reputation as “that guy”.

How would you fix this? From the player perspective, this is THE best moment to activate the ability:
1. Nathan can only draw the extra card during opponent's turn, not during his own due to Spirit.
2. Nathan can influence the only card drawn during opponent's turn; he has built some kind of Fateseal device.
3. Sometimes, Nathan's opponent receives a game loss due to sloppy play.


If WotC is against this kind of behavior, they should banhammer Dakra Mystic, or more likely, the game-loss machine that is Spirit of the Labyrinth.

Some of the above answers seem to assume that players repeatedly make this mistake. From how I read it, it's a different opponent each time making that mistake. That just means a lot of players “get educated” that day.

Originally posted by Callum Milne:

If DEC infractions due to Spirit of the Labyrinth kept showing up, that's something I might consider a reminder about.

So in that case you would “break” that player one gameplay by public announcement about Spirit+Dakra synergy? We are talking about decklist errors because you can apply them to all players, everyone can forget to put name at decklist. I would not remind players at competetive tournaments about unwanted synergies or common missplays. If we would do that, then why not tell players to check Tarmogoyf stats before you throw lighting bolt at him? That's common missplay at modern tournaments.

Mart Leuvering
From the player perspective, this is THE best moment to activate the ability:

Indeed, if we put DEC aside, there is no better time to use Dakra & Spirit synergy than opponents upkeep.

There's a difference between Spirit/Dakra and Tarmogoyf/Bolt. Primarily, there is no infraction for messing up the latter. If there's a particular combination of cards that is leading to infractions being committed, I have no problem reminding players to be careful. This player's “strategy” is to try to get Game Losses for opponents via the IPG. That's not a Magic: the Gathering strategy. I've seen Legacy HJs warn players that “Brainstorm is different from Ponder. Make sure you resolve those spells correctly.”

Happily, there are more posts in this thread than there have been successful GLs achieved by this combo. Unless there's a sudden introduction of cards that makes this deck… vaguely good?… I don't think we need to do a lot of worrying.