@@ashanimiller1648 you do realize that a lot of people watch it because they want to see the finals & games. Not necessarily the commenters opinions on the games right? A lot of the times the commenters don't actually add anything relevant to the game but noise that drowns out the table politics.
@@ashanimiller1648 because I want to see the contents of the match itself including what the players were saying. There's I reason why I made the comment on this video and not PWP's version. Because I tried to watch the PWP version with the commentary and couldn't finish it. Very simple...
Finally, the controversial moment with actual game audio! Trying to hold up MBT and making your opponents spend their resources is smart in theory, but how it went down wasn't very cool and was complicated by GA specifically. Ultimately, we don't know what interaction the Kinnan player had, if any, and the only guaranteed way to keep the game alive for the rest of the table was that MBT on GA. Trying to force the Kinnan player to activate theasios probably doesn't make much difference then vs on Waffle's turn and if he has one of the forces in hand he doesn't need the mana up anyway. I think you have to MBT abolisher in that scenario because if you pass priority and it resolves you lose anyway, but the other players may be able to interact to deal with the dockside+curio loop for you without the GA on board so leaving your other opponents resources and options open in this case might have actually helped. You give yourself a chance and benefit by being next in turn order. The turn will be passed to you with most players low or out of interaction and you may be able to find you line and win or at least stabilize. In both an in game and out of game sense, this feels like a misplay on Waffle's part.
No this was 100% Kinnan players fault as they literally said they could theoretically stop a dockside. This Elude’s to having a form of creature interaction. For craps and giggles, let’s say the Kinnan player does not state he could theoretically stop a dockside, he still is at fault. This is due to failing to and not communicating to an otherwise very open pod of players who are begging for him to either say he can do something or not. Because in every scenario, Mindbreak trap on Grand abolisher is bad/the wrong play when there is a cloudstone curio in play and a dockside known in hand. I would never wanna play with the Kinnan player as he threw the game because he didn’t wanna participate in communication in a format that focuses around just that. Sad the other players experienced that and even more pathetic once it was revealed Kinnan had a Swan song and force of will in hand.
Id have thrown the MBT to continue the game and force further interaction. The issue I find is your interaction is public so people will lean on you by default, you can argue your case further but since its public knowledge people will continue to lean on it no matter what you say. If they MBT, then someone must have a force or something for dockside. I believe Kinnan did say they had something for dockside, possibly the force of will? I would not allow someone to force my interaction so the opponent could then play around the MBT which is already known. If they commit the GB first with a known MBT then they surely have something else going off to win, you know dockside, you know MBT if kinnan declines to interact then they MUST have something but do not want the next turn player to not burn resources. Just my 2 cents.
Tapping the Mox Opal is still considered an action. Rule 117.4 states that "If all players pass in succession (that is, if all players pass without taking any actions in between passing), the spell or ability on top of the stack resolves, or if the stack is empty, the phase or step ends." The problem lies in the Rules not properly defining what an "action" is, but is referenced in the MTG Glossary for the term "Pass", which states that a pass is "to decline to take any action (such as casting a spell or activating an ability) when you have priority. See rule 117, Timing and Priority”. The problem lies in the wording of rulings of 305, 602, and 605: Rule 305.6: "A land with a basic land type has the intrinsic ability “{T}: Add [mana symbol]” Rule 602.1: "Activated abilities have a cost and an effect. They are written as “[Cost]: [Effect.] [Activation instructions (if any).]” Rule 605.1: “Some activated abilities and some triggered abilities are also mana abilities, which are subject to special rules.” Rule 605.3: “Activating an activated mana ability follows the rules for activating any other activated ability”. This means that -any- sort of activation, be it a mana ability or not, generates another turn of priority. They (Wizards) could try to fix this loophole by declaring whether or not mana abilities or mana generating abilities that are not explicitly mana abilities should incur another round of priority, but that would require extensive testing on how that would impact not only multiplayer magic, but 1v1 magic as well.
@@ashyhealsno one said it uses the stack. You clearly have no clue what you’re talking about. You don’t need to “use the stack” to reset priority. Any game action resets priority and tapping a land or anything for mana is still a game action therefore resets priority. It’s pretty clear right in the rules alone stated above your comment but just so that’s clear and you don’t continue to give false information to people.. this happens all the time.
@@ashyhealsno one gets priority when tapping for mana. But when priority IS being passed, tapping does in fact EXTEND priority another round. Simple as.
Gary is seemingly close to a win at the start of the video. Freedom, the next player in turn/priority order, has a Mind Break Trap that has been revealed to the other players. When Gary goes for the win Freedom attempts to "priority bully" Ping into using his interaction first before casting MBT. Ping knows what he is doing and tells Freedom that if he does not use his own interaction and passes priority, then he will do the same and the game will be over. Which is what we saw happen.
Waffle did the right thing at the beginning by asking if anyone else had interaction but got defensive/aggressive wayyy to fast and made player 4 go defensive in response. I am not afraid to state my opinion or call names out so ill say This is Waffles fault IMO
Highly disagree because Kinnan player did not want to communicate with a pod and being a stubborn child. The guy said he would use mbt if the guy would only communicate if he could do something about dockside. I would never play with someone who won’t communicate and is stubborn like the Kinnan player was.
@@RitzyJ I dont care if u agree or disagree, im not debating. my opinion wont change. his manners werent correct, if he phrased that differently, the kinnan player might have revealed sth
@@aklepatzky you don’t care and your opinion isn’t changing? That’s the type of response I would expect from someone dying on a rock instead of asking for help. Exemplifying why I would not play with you or anyone like pew lmfao. Goodluck with that mentality 🥱🤣
lesson to you kiddos out there wanting to top at cedh events: you absolutely will fail at priority bullying if you are sitting on public-information interaction. You DOUBLE fail when you aggressively use passive-aggressive language to try to push other players into spending their interaction on your behalf. The Kinnan player played it cool so I have mad respect. If it were me, I wouldve gone argumentative and called out the tone and the language. I would've said "if you want to win, you will have to do it with your own cards. I will not win your game for you by spending mine. Please stop telling me this is my choice, when you have priority before me and I've already announced that I will pass if you pass. This stopped being a cooperative effort when you announced you would NOT use the MBT, which you know is useless if no one else at the table interacts with GA."
To be fair the Kinnan player literally had to rely on the MBT player to win. The Kinnan player was stubborn and refused to be cooperative in order for him to win. If the rest of the table has to completely rely on you to even have a chance at winning, then asking for a show of support is being cooperative. Literally all he had to do was tap a mana like the other player and they all could have had a chance at winning. Instead the Kinnan player tried to bully the MBT into saving him. While refusing to help the person who could save you.
KINNAN PLAYER DIDNT TRY AND RELY ON ANYTHING! Waffle had priority before him, and passed with known counter magic in hand. WAFFLE WAS GREEDY AND PRIORITY BULLYING 1000000000%. Ping called him on it, Waffle didn’t back down and they all lost. THIS WAS DEF NOT Ping’s fault. THIS COMMUNITY NEEDS TO WAKE UP, there are no two sides to this. Waffle 100000% threw the game, and goblin chiming in with nonsense because Waffle was influencing him. MBT counters GA…then you lean on Ping to deal with dockside….done and DONE. No more debates please.
All waffle had to say was: I’m going to counter the GA but can’t deal with the dockside, so I’m going to lean on you for that. But this is all I have. Done and done. You play to your outs, not someone else’s… I would have ripped Waffle a new one if he tried that shenanigans with me
You guys are insane I would never play with people like pew because he doesn’t wanna communicate and be stubborn. Waffle and Rog/si were right in telling pew to fing communicate so I would be pissed at the pew for not communicating and this game was not thrown by waffle, but by pew because he doesn’t know how to play a 4 person communication centric game.
@@sadizz455the table lost to player 4 not communicating at all in a communication centric game answer or not. Later revealed he had both force of will and swan song in hand. Screw the Kinnan player for throwing.
@@RitzyJ no player is forced to reveal what they do or do not have in their hand, let alone being forced to play their counterspells because player 2 didn't want to.
@@sadizz455 No one stated he was forced to do anything. He had answers and did not wish to communicate anything to the rest of the table. Even if he had no answers he did not communicate at all. He gave an ultimatum, “if you pass I pass” I would never play with someone like that. The goal is to win, but it’s a multiplayer game making communication required and necessary. If someone does not communicate I will not play with them for the same reason I elect to not play 1v1 formats.
Tl.Dr: MBT player went 0IQ for being greedy, giving the chance to GA player to combo off another turn since they all KNEW he had MBT, but not other interactions from other players. This is not CasualEDH, it's not about the optimal play for the entire table, it's about the optimal play for WINNING. That being said a few things to consider: Thrasios activation is available and MBT is available, Thrasios might dig into something to stop GA, MBT stops it for sure. MBT player saying he won't use it equate as HIM losing the game, so in my opinion the mentality to force others that MIGHT have something is greed at best and retardation at worst. Bullying the other player that MIGHT have something in his hand to deal with Dockside is logical, but it's also giving information that the other player needs to wait and combo another turn. The optimal play would indeed be for Dock to be exiled, but GA player would never be stupid enough to keep at it when they all KNOW there's a MBT in play, so the actual best play would be for the other 2 players to keep quiet and for MBT player to not be greedy and just use it. The moment MBT tried to be greedy, GA secured his chance to not go for the win and try another turn.
@@karmajarruleso from Ping's perspective Dockside won't get cast as long as MBT is in Waffle's hand. Meaning MBT can just be held until Waffle's win attempt, while Ping uses one card, maybe two if Force of Will to stop him. Meaning he's down in card advantage just because he's being priority bullied. This is the line of play you're advocating for Ping? Just want to understand.
Wow 😅 Waffle priority bullies with a Mind Break Trap in hand and blames PingMeisterPong that he didn't do anything, while Goblin agrees??? ... End of the Story: you don't have to play blue to win a cEDH tourney because the blue players are stubborn and don't use their counterspells anyways 😂
mindbreak trap alone only stopped abolisher, not the dockside win, so he needed to try to force out resources from other players on the gamble he could win on his next turn. It was the right move from a competitive mindset even if it looks super cheesy
@@retrowaffles5442 "Tell me what you have, and I can interact." "You can reset priority if you'd like using Thrsios.(after passes priority themselves)". Gooooood old priority bullying. Messed around, and found out. Sure, Ping didn't win this, but more did you, and nor did he get priority bullied. I'd absolutely throw a game just to make the point that I am not going to get priority bullied as well. + EDIT: Yes, maybe it was the right play with a competitive mindset and all, but the way he did it showed poor sportsmanship and that was what Ping had an issue with.
@@ElManataro Is it really standing your ground to concede the finals of a tournament with interaction in hand? If you're out of position sometimes you have to make plays that are less than optimal for your game plan because they still increase your chances of winning the game. Straight conceding the table out of spite seems like the biggest loss you could possibly take.
Play the mbt, it’s known information. You don’t know what else the kinnan has in hand. Everything doesn’t need to be a political big brain play all the time. Also, trying to bully someone into a play with an unknown hand looks and sounds dumb so he can’t even be salty that it didn’t work. Good play ping!
I seem to be in the minority here, but the fact that MBT is better saved for Dockside is totally relevant here, as is the fact that two opponents are trying to reason with you. Just because Waffle might've come off as unkind doesn't mean he's wrong. Camp "Ping threw the game." 💯 Edit: also how Ping speaks as if to potentially feign Otawara or Boseju, too. IDK, I definitely see more Ping throwing this game than anyone else. Also not a judgement on him, just interpreting the situation presented.
I honestly believe he didn’t have any interaction. This also may be my casual commander brain but usually you wanna communicate with the table to deal with the largest threat.
@@Dioliolio yeah for sure! And obviously we won't ever know for sure, but I believe Ping said afterwards that he did have at least one counter that he could've used.
It's true that ideally MBT would be saved for dockside, but Ping was in a tough lose-lose spot because if he used interaction on GA there would be no reason for the turn player to play dockside, knowing about the MBT. So, if Ping interacted it would have put him down on interaction while giving Waffle an extra counter to protect a win on his turn. I really think that he had no good play here, and Waffle was refusing to do politics in a way that created a good scenario for Ping, because he was so set on getting the bad scenario for Ping that benefited Waffle. I don't know, I just think that Waffle passing priority was forcing Ping to choose between two bad choices, and really, some people just don't like someone else trying to play their hand. Waffle absolutely could have made a deal like, if you counter GA, I will only play MBT on dockside, or I won't play MBT on my turn for a win, or you know, he could have just played it because he's trying to pressure someone who isn't budging. Waffle wasn't wrong about the ideal play, but he was very wrong about the best play in this situation. Camp Waffle threw it 🤣
Idk, I doubt there were signs of Freedom going for a win. All he had out was a Thrasios. MBT is also a really bad counter to protect your own win. Casting it efficiently requires your opponents to cast 3 spells. Exile could also be relevant if there was a possible underworld breach/yawgmoth's will. Although I agree that Freedom should've just cast MBT at the end of the day and not forced his opponents to do something but I definitely think it was the right play to communicate with his opponents on the turn win for help with additional interaction. Especially if MBT was the only thing Freedom had.
If he had the answer and wanted to pass priority still, I mean, it's a legitimate play that could maybe ensure your victory if someone else had the answer (but it's a gamble on your part). And if you do so, you do not have the right to make politics nor demand anything to your advantage. It's better to just keep quiet. If no one else responded, then you suck it up and stay quiet since that was your gamble. You don't even need to tell anyone you had an answer in the first place. It's that simple. The way he went about it is pure trash. God bless to the winner tho, he deserved it. It's satisfying to see these losers salty.
Just respond to waffle with "i pass priority idiot" so hed lose his chance to do anything. Also wouldnt ping be forced to show his hand if asked? I thought post game hand check couldnt be denied if asked.
"Idk what I'm searching for" Immediately finds what's he's looking Without even looking for the second part of the deck. Lul Also activating mana abilities do not reset priority.
@@Choirboy-fk6iq This is incorrect, mana abilities do not give priority to any player just like playing a land. Only if the mana ability requires you to target something or if it's from a loyalty activation. If this was true everytime you tapped a land you'd have to wait for for priority to go around the table. 605.3c An activated mana ability doesn't go on the stack, so it can't be targeted, countered, or otherwise responded to. Rather, it resolves immediately after it is activated. It's a special actions don't use the stack and it can not be responded to.
@@Raijimura, you're understanding the rules interaction incorrectly. While mana abilities don't use the stack, they do still reset priority, but 99% of the time you are spending that mana while you have priority as part of paying costs for a spell or activated ability, which would make it a non issue. The reason this rule exists is because of interactions with cards like Selvala, Explorer Returned and Urza, Lord High Artificer because Selvala can draw players into interaction without having to spend the mana and Urza can turn off a Trinisphere to allow for interaction. There are well documented cases and discussions surrounding what the community calls "mana bullying" around this exact scenario. If you have any questions about it, ask a judge. But this has been a known issue in the community for years now.
@@Choirboy-fk6iq I am a judge and you are absolutely wrong, I just gave you the ruling on mana abilities and you either ignored it or don't understand. The only time someone else gets priority for activating mana abilities is if it targets something or if it is a loyalty ability. Nothing else, players can tap lands and uptap them before casting a spell. if you actually look at Selvala, Explorer Returned it literally says in the ruling you can not respond to it, the same would go for Urza when he taps artifacts for {U}. Also Trinisphere is a static ability that says spells that cost less than three cost three if its untapped. As soon as you tap it with Urza it turns the spells have to be casted for three ability off. The last thing you can do for a spell is pay its mana cost, you can cast a spell Activate Selvala then if she doesn't add enough mana the spell is reversed. Lets just leave it at this and go our separate ways for now instead of me having to give you well known rulings that you can just looks up on the Magic Gatherer search engine.
@@Raijimura either you are a terrible liar about being a judge, or someone that needs to get their judge status revoked... Id like your name and judge ID please as my brother who is a judge would like to report you as it is clearly you who doenst know the rules lol or just too ignorant to admit when you're wrong. You are corrrect @Choirboy-fk6iq and here is the Wizards ruling (not the Shelton power trip mitchell ruling) : Rule 117.4 states that "If all players pass in succession (that is, if all players pass without taking any actions in between passing), the spell or ability on top of the stack resolves, or if the stack is empty, the phase or step ends." The problem lies in the Rules not properly defining what an "action" is, but is referenced in the MTG Glossary for the term "Pass", which states that a pass is "to decline to take any action (such as casting a spell or activating an ability) when you have priority. See rule 117, Timing and Priority”. The problem lies in the wording of rulings of 305, 602, and 605: Rule 305.6: "A land with a basic land type has the intrinsic ability “{T}: Add [mana symbol]” Rule 602.1: "Activated abilities have a cost and an effect. They are written as “[Cost]: [Effect.] [Activation instructions (if any).]” Rule 605.1: “Some activated abilities and some triggered abilities are also mana abilities, which are subject to special rules.” Rule 605.3: “Activating an activated mana ability follows the rules for activating any other activated ability”. This means that any sort of activation, be it a mana ability or not, generates another turn of priority.
Doing gods work posting this without the god awful commentary
Do you have any constructive criticism or are you just being an asshole where you think the casters won’t see it?
FR bro i was about to say the same
why do you watch the event then?
@@ashanimiller1648 you do realize that a lot of people watch it because they want to see the finals & games. Not necessarily the commenters opinions on the games right?
A lot of the times the commenters don't actually add anything relevant to the game but noise that drowns out the table politics.
@@ashanimiller1648 because I want to see the contents of the match itself including what the players were saying.
There's I reason why I made the comment on this video and not PWP's version.
Because I tried to watch the PWP version with the commentary and couldn't finish it. Very simple...
Seems like a frustrating way to end the finals.
Finally, the controversial moment with actual game audio! Trying to hold up MBT and making your opponents spend their resources is smart in theory, but how it went down wasn't very cool and was complicated by GA specifically. Ultimately, we don't know what interaction the Kinnan player had, if any, and the only guaranteed way to keep the game alive for the rest of the table was that MBT on GA. Trying to force the Kinnan player to activate theasios probably doesn't make much difference then vs on Waffle's turn and if he has one of the forces in hand he doesn't need the mana up anyway. I think you have to MBT abolisher in that scenario because if you pass priority and it resolves you lose anyway, but the other players may be able to interact to deal with the dockside+curio loop for you without the GA on board so leaving your other opponents resources and options open in this case might have actually helped. You give yourself a chance and benefit by being next in turn order. The turn will be passed to you with most players low or out of interaction and you may be able to find you line and win or at least stabilize. In both an in game and out of game sense, this feels like a misplay on Waffle's part.
No this was 100% Kinnan players fault as they literally said they could theoretically stop a dockside. This Elude’s to having a form of creature interaction. For craps and giggles, let’s say the Kinnan player does not state he could theoretically stop a dockside, he still is at fault. This is due to failing to and not communicating to an otherwise very open pod of players who are begging for him to either say he can do something or not. Because in every scenario, Mindbreak trap on Grand abolisher is bad/the wrong play when there is a cloudstone curio in play and a dockside known in hand. I would never wanna play with the Kinnan player as he threw the game because he didn’t wanna participate in communication in a format that focuses around just that. Sad the other players experienced that and even more pathetic once it was revealed Kinnan had a Swan song and force of will in hand.
@xritzyj2996 incorrect. Should've trapped, then have Kinnan counter. Prioritized bullying over simple play
@@TCG9777 my argument was for the MTB on the GA and then have the other players backup afterwards and NOT priority bullying with public information.
@@TCG9777 simply disagree
lol gary the goat. "uh im not sure what ill grab with this tutor"
well done sir
Id have thrown the MBT to continue the game and force further interaction.
The issue I find is your interaction is public so people will lean on you by default, you can argue your case further but since its public knowledge people will continue to lean on it no matter what you say. If they MBT, then someone must have a force or something for dockside. I believe Kinnan did say they had something for dockside, possibly the force of will?
I would not allow someone to force my interaction so the opponent could then play around the MBT which is already known. If they commit the GB first with a known MBT then they surely have something else going off to win, you know dockside, you know MBT if kinnan declines to interact then they MUST have something but do not want the next turn player to not burn resources.
Just my 2 cents.
"I might grab a... Thassa's" 😂 so troll
how can he reset priority by tapping mox opal? Shouldn't it not be able to be responded to because it's a mana ability and does not use the stack?
Tapping the Mox Opal is still considered an action.
Rule 117.4 states that "If all players pass in succession (that is, if all players pass without taking any actions in between passing), the spell or ability on top of the stack resolves, or if the stack is empty, the phase or step ends." The problem lies in the Rules not properly defining what an "action" is, but is referenced in the MTG Glossary for the term "Pass", which states that a pass is "to decline to take any action (such as casting a spell or activating an ability) when you have priority. See rule 117, Timing and Priority”.
The problem lies in the wording of rulings of 305, 602, and 605:
Rule 305.6: "A land with a basic land type has the intrinsic ability “{T}: Add [mana symbol]”
Rule 602.1: "Activated abilities have a cost and an effect. They are written as “[Cost]: [Effect.] [Activation instructions (if any).]”
Rule 605.1: “Some activated abilities and some triggered abilities are also mana abilities, which are subject to special rules.”
Rule 605.3: “Activating an activated mana ability follows the rules for activating any other activated ability”.
This means that -any- sort of activation, be it a mana ability or not, generates another turn of priority. They (Wizards) could try to fix this loophole by declaring whether or not mana abilities or mana generating abilities that are not explicitly mana abilities should incur another round of priority, but that would require extensive testing on how that would impact not only multiplayer magic, but 1v1 magic as well.
You can't reset priority as the mana abilities do not use the stack.
If tapping mana does reset priority then games would take forever.
@@ashyhealsno one said it uses the stack. You clearly have no clue what you’re talking about. You don’t need to “use the stack” to reset priority. Any game action resets priority and tapping a land or anything for mana is still a game action therefore resets priority. It’s pretty clear right in the rules alone stated above your comment but just so that’s clear and you don’t continue to give false information to people.. this happens all the time.
@@ashyhealsno one gets priority when tapping for mana. But when priority IS being passed, tapping does in fact EXTEND priority another round. Simple as.
Def werid and crazy. I wouldnt take thay bullying either so im glad of this result
Can somebody please explain to me what happened? I can't assign the voices and I am too stupid to get whats happening.
Gary is seemingly close to a win at the start of the video. Freedom, the next player in turn/priority order, has a Mind Break Trap that has been revealed to the other players. When Gary goes for the win Freedom attempts to "priority bully" Ping into using his interaction first before casting MBT. Ping knows what he is doing and tells Freedom that if he does not use his own interaction and passes priority, then he will do the same and the game will be over. Which is what we saw happen.
@@thisisbigbear ty
Waffle did the right thing at the beginning by asking if anyone else had interaction but got defensive/aggressive wayyy to fast and made player 4 go defensive in response. I am not afraid to state my opinion or call names out so ill say This is Waffles fault IMO
Highly disagree because Kinnan player did not want to communicate with a pod and being a stubborn child. The guy said he would use mbt if the guy would only communicate if he could do something about dockside. I would never play with someone who won’t communicate and is stubborn like the Kinnan player was.
@@RitzyJ I dont care if u agree or disagree, im not debating. my opinion wont change. his manners werent correct, if he phrased that differently, the kinnan player might have revealed sth
@@aklepatzky you don’t care and your opinion isn’t changing? That’s the type of response I would expect from someone dying on a rock instead of asking for help. Exemplifying why I would not play with you or anyone like pew lmfao. Goodluck with that mentality 🥱🤣
@@RitzyJ we dont play in the same playgroup, I dont care if u wanna play with me or not
lesson to you kiddos out there wanting to top at cedh events: you absolutely will fail at priority bullying if you are sitting on public-information interaction. You DOUBLE fail when you aggressively use passive-aggressive language to try to push other players into spending their interaction on your behalf.
The Kinnan player played it cool so I have mad respect. If it were me, I wouldve gone argumentative and called out the tone and the language. I would've said "if you want to win, you will have to do it with your own cards. I will not win your game for you by spending mine. Please stop telling me this is my choice, when you have priority before me and I've already announced that I will pass if you pass. This stopped being a cooperative effort when you announced you would NOT use the MBT, which you know is useless if no one else at the table interacts with GA."
To be fair the Kinnan player literally had to rely on the MBT player to win. The Kinnan player was stubborn and refused to be cooperative in order for him to win. If the rest of the table has to completely rely on you to even have a chance at winning, then asking for a show of support is being cooperative. Literally all he had to do was tap a mana like the other player and they all could have had a chance at winning. Instead the Kinnan player tried to bully the MBT into saving him. While refusing to help the person who could save you.
@@comradeavatar2289 putting the bullied player into a kingmaker position is not by any definition "cooperation."
KINNAN PLAYER DIDNT TRY AND RELY ON ANYTHING! Waffle had priority before him, and passed with known counter magic in hand. WAFFLE WAS GREEDY AND PRIORITY BULLYING 1000000000%. Ping called him on it, Waffle didn’t back down and they all lost. THIS WAS DEF NOT Ping’s fault. THIS COMMUNITY NEEDS TO WAKE UP, there are no two sides to this. Waffle 100000% threw the game, and goblin chiming in with nonsense because Waffle was influencing him.
MBT counters GA…then you lean on Ping to deal with dockside….done and DONE. No more debates please.
All waffle had to say was:
I’m going to counter the GA but can’t deal with the dockside, so I’m going to lean on you for that. But this is all I have.
Done and done. You play to your outs, not someone else’s… I would have ripped Waffle a new one if he tried that shenanigans with me
You guys are insane I would never play with people like pew because he doesn’t wanna communicate and be stubborn. Waffle and Rog/si were right in telling pew to fing communicate so I would be pissed at the pew for not communicating and this game was not thrown by waffle, but by pew because he doesn’t know how to play a 4 person communication centric game.
The downfall of waffle dun dun dun😮
Wow. Make a play.
"he's just trying to get you to waste mindbreak trap" pog
Couldn't p1 do something? I don't understand
that was the perfect play. to hell with losers thinking he had to be bullied into being a kingmaker.
lmao what? The entire table lost on that turn. If you think interacting with a game-winning play is kingmaking, you don't know what the word means
@@jonathandalcourt2840 the table lost thanks to player 2. Player 4 had no reason to be bullied into making a play they probably couldn't even do.
@@sadizz455the table lost to player 4 not communicating at all in a communication centric game answer or not. Later revealed he had both force of will and swan song in hand. Screw the Kinnan player for throwing.
@@RitzyJ no player is forced to reveal what they do or do not have in their hand, let alone being forced to play their counterspells because player 2 didn't want to.
@@sadizz455 No one stated he was forced to do anything. He had answers and did not wish to communicate anything to the rest of the table. Even if he had no answers he did not communicate at all. He gave an ultimatum, “if you pass I pass” I would never play with someone like that. The goal is to win, but it’s a multiplayer game making communication required and necessary. If someone does not communicate I will not play with them for the same reason I elect to not play 1v1 formats.
Tl.Dr: MBT player went 0IQ for being greedy, giving the chance to GA player to combo off another turn since they all KNEW he had MBT, but not other interactions from other players.
This is not CasualEDH, it's not about the optimal play for the entire table, it's about the optimal play for WINNING.
That being said a few things to consider: Thrasios activation is available and MBT is available, Thrasios might dig into something to stop GA, MBT stops it for sure. MBT player saying he won't use it equate as HIM losing the game, so in my opinion the mentality to force others that MIGHT have something is greed at best and retardation at worst. Bullying the other player that MIGHT have something in his hand to deal with Dockside is logical, but it's also giving information that the other player needs to wait and combo another turn.
The optimal play would indeed be for Dock to be exiled, but GA player would never be stupid enough to keep at it when they all KNOW there's a MBT in play, so the actual best play would be for the other 2 players to keep quiet and for MBT player to not be greedy and just use it. The moment MBT tried to be greedy, GA secured his chance to not go for the win and try another turn.
Abolisher on the stack, MBT has to be used here.
Wouldn’t you want to save mbt for the dockside?
@@xp1446 Yes. It's a loss otherwise
@Joe Morgan is a Loss either way
He wouldn’t play dockside if the mindbreak trap is still available
@@karmajarruleso from Ping's perspective Dockside won't get cast as long as MBT is in Waffle's hand. Meaning MBT can just be held until Waffle's win attempt, while Ping uses one card, maybe two if Force of Will to stop him. Meaning he's down in card advantage just because he's being priority bullied. This is the line of play you're advocating for Ping? Just want to understand.
Wow 😅 Waffle priority bullies with a Mind Break Trap in hand and blames PingMeisterPong that he didn't do anything, while Goblin agrees??? ...
End of the Story: you don't have to play blue to win a cEDH tourney because the blue players are stubborn and don't use their counterspells anyways 😂
mindbreak trap alone only stopped abolisher, not the dockside win, so he needed to try to force out resources from other players on the gamble he could win on his next turn. It was the right move from a competitive mindset even if it looks super cheesy
@@retrowaffles5442 "Tell me what you have, and I can interact."
"You can reset priority if you'd like using Thrsios.(after passes priority themselves)". Gooooood old priority bullying. Messed around, and found out. Sure, Ping didn't win this, but more did you, and nor did he get priority bullied. I'd absolutely throw a game just to make the point that I am not going to get priority bullied as well.
+
EDIT: Yes, maybe it was the right play with a competitive mindset and all, but the way he did it showed poor sportsmanship and that was what Ping had an issue with.
@@retrowaffles5442 burning bridges and still losing.. Looked like a pretty bad move.
@@scottlatta5348 what bridges?? This is an online tournament. Maybe it did but he also build some by standing his ground and not getting bullied.
@@ElManataro Is it really standing your ground to concede the finals of a tournament with interaction in hand? If you're out of position sometimes you have to make plays that are less than optimal for your game plan because they still increase your chances of winning the game. Straight conceding the table out of spite seems like the biggest loss you could possibly take.
Play the mbt, it’s known information. You don’t know what else the kinnan has in hand. Everything doesn’t need to be a political big brain play all the time. Also, trying to bully someone into a play with an unknown hand looks and sounds dumb so he can’t even be salty that it didn’t work. Good play ping!
GG’s. 🤡
Id rather just lose the game then have people telling me how to play my cards. Id just lose tonprove a point
I seem to be in the minority here, but the fact that MBT is better saved for Dockside is totally relevant here, as is the fact that two opponents are trying to reason with you. Just because Waffle might've come off as unkind doesn't mean he's wrong. Camp "Ping threw the game." 💯
Edit: also how Ping speaks as if to potentially feign Otawara or Boseju, too. IDK, I definitely see more Ping throwing this game than anyone else. Also not a judgement on him, just interpreting the situation presented.
I honestly believe he didn’t have any interaction. This also may be my casual commander brain but usually you wanna communicate with the table to deal with the largest threat.
@@Dioliolio yeah for sure! And obviously we won't ever know for sure, but I believe Ping said afterwards that he did have at least one counter that he could've used.
@@DioliolioHe had a Force of Will and Swan Song 😞
It's true that ideally MBT would be saved for dockside, but Ping was in a tough lose-lose spot because if he used interaction on GA there would be no reason for the turn player to play dockside, knowing about the MBT. So, if Ping interacted it would have put him down on interaction while giving Waffle an extra counter to protect a win on his turn. I really think that he had no good play here, and Waffle was refusing to do politics in a way that created a good scenario for Ping, because he was so set on getting the bad scenario for Ping that benefited Waffle.
I don't know, I just think that Waffle passing priority was forcing Ping to choose between two bad choices, and really, some people just don't like someone else trying to play their hand. Waffle absolutely could have made a deal like, if you counter GA, I will only play MBT on dockside, or I won't play MBT on my turn for a win, or you know, he could have just played it because he's trying to pressure someone who isn't budging.
Waffle wasn't wrong about the ideal play, but he was very wrong about the best play in this situation. Camp Waffle threw it 🤣
Idk, I doubt there were signs of Freedom going for a win. All he had out was a Thrasios.
MBT is also a really bad counter to protect your own win. Casting it efficiently requires your opponents to cast 3 spells. Exile could also be relevant if there was a possible underworld breach/yawgmoth's will.
Although I agree that Freedom should've just cast MBT at the end of the day and not forced his opponents to do something but I definitely think it was the right play to communicate with his opponents on the turn win for help with additional interaction. Especially if MBT was the only thing Freedom had.
If he had the answer and wanted to pass priority still, I mean, it's a legitimate play that could maybe ensure your victory if someone else had the answer (but it's a gamble on your part). And if you do so, you do not have the right to make politics nor demand anything to your advantage. It's better to just keep quiet. If no one else responded, then you suck it up and stay quiet since that was your gamble. You don't even need to tell anyone you had an answer in the first place. It's that simple.
The way he went about it is pure trash. God bless to the winner tho, he deserved it. It's satisfying to see these losers salty.
Just respond to waffle with "i pass priority idiot" so hed lose his chance to do anything. Also wouldnt ping be forced to show his hand if asked? I thought post game hand check couldnt be denied if asked.
Goblin sounds just as dumb as waffles feels bad for ping but whatever as long as waffles lost god bless
If I heard "my friend" one more time I stg
😂😂😂😂
"Idk what I'm searching for"
Immediately finds what's he's looking Without even looking for the second part of the deck. Lul
Also activating mana abilities do not reset priority.
Mana abilities are still actions taken, and taking actions do reset priority.
@@Choirboy-fk6iq This is incorrect, mana abilities do not give priority to any player just like playing a land. Only if the mana ability requires you to target something or if it's from a loyalty activation. If this was true everytime you tapped a land you'd have to wait for for priority to go around the table.
605.3c An activated mana ability doesn't go on the stack, so it can't be targeted, countered, or otherwise responded to. Rather, it resolves immediately after it is activated.
It's a special actions don't use the stack and it can not be responded to.
@@Raijimura, you're understanding the rules interaction incorrectly. While mana abilities don't use the stack, they do still reset priority, but 99% of the time you are spending that mana while you have priority as part of paying costs for a spell or activated ability, which would make it a non issue. The reason this rule exists is because of interactions with cards like Selvala, Explorer Returned and Urza, Lord High Artificer because Selvala can draw players into interaction without having to spend the mana and Urza can turn off a Trinisphere to allow for interaction. There are well documented cases and discussions surrounding what the community calls "mana bullying" around this exact scenario. If you have any questions about it, ask a judge. But this has been a known issue in the community for years now.
@@Choirboy-fk6iq I am a judge and you are absolutely wrong, I just gave you the ruling on mana abilities and you either ignored it or don't understand. The only time someone else gets priority for activating mana abilities is if it targets something or if it is a loyalty ability. Nothing else, players can tap lands and uptap them before casting a spell. if you actually look at Selvala, Explorer Returned it literally says in the ruling you can not respond to it, the same would go for Urza when he taps artifacts for {U}. Also Trinisphere is a static ability that says spells that cost less than three cost three if its untapped. As soon as you tap it with Urza it turns the spells have to be casted for three ability off. The last thing you can do for a spell is pay its mana cost, you can cast a spell Activate Selvala then if she doesn't add enough mana the spell is reversed. Lets just leave it at this and go our separate ways for now instead of me having to give you well known rulings that you can just looks up on the Magic Gatherer search engine.
@@Raijimura either you are a terrible liar about being a judge, or someone that needs to get their judge status revoked... Id like your name and judge ID please as my brother who is a judge would like to report you as it is clearly you who doenst know the rules lol or just too ignorant to admit when you're wrong. You are corrrect @Choirboy-fk6iq and here is the Wizards ruling (not the Shelton power trip mitchell ruling) :
Rule 117.4 states that "If all players pass in succession (that is, if all players pass without taking any actions in between passing), the spell or ability on top of the stack resolves, or if the stack is empty, the phase or step ends." The problem lies in the Rules not properly defining what an "action" is, but is referenced in the MTG Glossary for the term "Pass", which states that a pass is "to decline to take any action (such as casting a spell or activating an ability) when you have priority. See rule 117, Timing and Priority”.
The problem lies in the wording of rulings of 305, 602, and 605:
Rule 305.6: "A land with a basic land type has the intrinsic ability “{T}: Add [mana symbol]”
Rule 602.1: "Activated abilities have a cost and an effect. They are written as “[Cost]: [Effect.] [Activation instructions (if any).]”
Rule 605.1: “Some activated abilities and some triggered abilities are also mana abilities, which are subject to special rules.”
Rule 605.3: “Activating an activated mana ability follows the rules for activating any other activated ability”.
This means that any sort of activation, be it a mana ability or not, generates another turn of priority.
Lmfaooo competitive commander is a joke
It’s tough making Mario Party competitive 😂
@@christopherpho9424 facts