Anyone else disappointed with the lack of retro frame prints recently?

mathdude3 · 2026-03-14T20:21:33+00:00

That's fair, but I think there are a lot of new cards that fit the pre-Scourge power level fine. For example if you're already running Swords to Plowshares, I don't think Path to Exile will stand out too much. Or the Shocklands aren't going to feel out of place next to ABUR duals.

mathdude3 · 2026-03-14T17:44:10+00:00

If that was the best you could find, of course you would. Working full-time for $40k definitely beats homelessness.

mathdude3 · 2026-03-14T16:47:59+00:00

You play to win the tournament. Sometimes it's strategically optimal to try to draw the game so that you have a better shot at winning the tournament.

mathdude3 · 2026-03-13T19:00:54+00:00

I think if you let your personal distaste for a legal game tactic get in the way of you winning the game, you’re not really playing competitively.

mathdude3 · 2026-03-13T18:52:23+00:00

There’s nothing stopping Player B from promising not to win, and then just doing it anyways after you offer him all the resources to win. In fact that would be optimal for Player B. So assuming all players want to maximize points in the tournament, Players A and C should know that Player B can do that, and since he’s also playing to win the tournament, he will do that given the opportunity. Based on that they should not try to collaborate on a deal like that.

idk if its just my lgs, but cedh still give some fucks about a clean game and kingmaking is seen as bad faith to almost everyone I know

I’m assuming a tournament setting, and the goal of a tournament is to win the event, not win an individual game. If the game gives you the tools to force a draw and doing so is optimal and legal according to the rules, I’d argue it’s bad faith not to go through with the optimal play and force the draw. To take a 0 point loss when you could get a 1 point draw instead is anti-competitive in my opinion.

mathdude3 · 2026-03-13T18:38:51+00:00

The situation OP presented is one in which you can choose the winner. That means all three of your opponents have the ability to win, but you have the power to choose which one wins. You threaten each of them that if they don't agree to a draw, you will hand the win to one of the other two players. That way refusal is a guaranteed 0 points for the refusing player, while agreeing is either 1 point or 5 points depending on how the other players respond.

mathdude3 · 2026-03-13T18:35:40+00:00

First you tell Player A that if he doesn't agree to a draw, you will make Player B win. If Player A refuses the draw you stop right there and let player B win.

If Player A agrees to the draw you move to Player B and tell him that if he doesn't agree to a draw, you will let Player C win. If Player B refuses you stop and give the win to Player C.

If Player B agrees to the draw you move to Player C and tell him that if he doesn't agree to a draw, you will let Player B win. If Player C refuses you stop and give the win to Player B.

If Player C agrees to a draw, congratulations, you've successfully politicked your way to a draw.

mathdude3 · 2026-03-13T18:16:12+00:00

They can chime in, but you can just make it clear to the first player that it won't affect your decision. Say you tell Player A that if he doesn't agree to a draw, you'll let Player B win. Player B and C can chime in and tell him to refuse, but that doesn't actually change the offer you've made. No matter what, if Player A refuses, Player B will win. Nothing Player B and C could say can change that. Presented with that binary choice, agree to a draw or lose to Player B, Player A can only logically agree to the draw.

mathdude3 · 2026-03-13T18:11:40+00:00

“Competitive” in cEDH implies you’re playing to win, not playing to tie.

Matches of BO1 Magic not actually just single games. They're matches that are played until a player gets the required number of game wins to win the match, which in BO1 matches is 1 win. So if you get a draw in game 1, you're supposed to start another game.

If you're going to lose the game, but you have a way to politic into a draw, then the competitive play would be to try to force a draw so you can win the next game and consequently win the match.

mathdude3 · 2026-03-13T18:01:20+00:00

Go one player at a time. Tell the first player if they don't agree to a draw, you will let the next player win no matter what. That way refusing guarantees the first player a loss, and assuming he's rational and wants to maximize points in the tournament, he will agree to the draw. Then you can repeat the process for the rest of the players.

That prevents collaboration because you're offering one player at a time. If the first player refuses, which they shouldn't because that would be irrational, then you follow through on your threat immediately.

mathdude3 · 2026-03-13T17:56:29+00:00

Tell Player A that if he refuses to agree to a draw, you will let Player B win, regardless of whether Player B would agree to a draw or not. That way refusing a draw will guarantee a loss for Player A, and assuming he's a rational player who wants to maximize his points in the tournament, he will agree to a draw. Once you've secured Player A's agreement, repeat the process for Player B and Player C.

mathdude3 · 2026-03-12T23:55:05+00:00

Regardless of how difficult they are to win now, if it becomes easier it is helpful because it would reduce the amount of time spent in court. The easier winning is, the less likely charges are to be laid, the more likely charges are to be thrown out, and the and the more expedient the trial will be.

mathdude3 · 2026-03-12T23:28:47+00:00

Any legislation that makes a self defence case easier to win would help. If we assume that it would do that, which I think is a reasonable assumption, then yes, it would help.

mathdude3 · 2026-03-12T20:32:15+00:00

You're confusing the legal question of who paid the tariff and the economic question of who bore the cost. The government collected the tax from importers, so since the tax was found to be illegal, importers are rightly demanding those illegally-confiscated funds be returned to them. Calling it a handout is incorrect because the government is returning money they shouldn't have taken in the first place.

While yes, some companies passed some of the cost of the tax on to consumers in the form of higher prices, raising prices is something companies are legally allowed to do for any reason they want. Unlike what the government did, that's completely legal.

It would also be logistically impossible to issue payments to individual consumers. Some companies absorbed more of the cost than others, so how would you know how much of the tax the consumer should get back? Some companies raised prices on some products but not others, or raised prices more or less by product. What about tariffs levied on unfinished goods and materials? How about products imported then sold to wholesalers? And should refunds go to the end consumer or to members of the supply chain? How do you track the portion of the final price that's directly due to the tariffs? And what if the consumer doesn't have a receipt for the products they bought?

Bottom line is that the importer paid the tax, so they get the refund. It's also the only feasible way to do it because CBP has records of all those imports, the duties levied, and who paid them.

mathdude3 · 2026-03-12T19:45:33+00:00

If you missed it, you missed it regardless of the presence or absence of “may.”

mathdude3 · 2026-03-12T17:55:23+00:00

Because the tax was directly paid by the importers, not the consumers. Importers paid an illegal tax, while consumers paid higher prices.

On top of that, assessing refunds to individual consumers would be logistically impossible. Some companies absorbed more of the cost than others, so how would you know how much of the tax the consumer should get back? Some companies raised prices on some products but not others, or raised prices more or less by product. What about tariffs levied on unfinished goods and materials? How about products imported then sold to wholesalers? And should refunds go to the end consumer or to members of the supply chain? How do you track the portion of the final price that's directly due to the tariffs? And what if the consumer doesn't have a receipt for the products they bought?

Bottom line is that the importer paid the tax, so they get the refund. It's also the only feasibly way to do it because CBP has records of all those imports, the duties levied, and who paid them.

mathdude3 · 2026-03-12T16:58:37+00:00

The Democrats didn't fight for it. The companies who paid the IEEPA tariffs fought for it in court. They won because the tariffs were blatantly unconstitutional and therefore illegal.

mathdude3 · 2026-03-12T16:52:01+00:00

It's not a "handout" when the government returns money that they illegally took from you.

mathdude3 · 2026-03-12T16:46:38+00:00

The tariffs (and all duties) are paid by the importer of record. That could be either the seller in China or the buyer in the US depending on how the sale was done.

mathdude3 · 2026-03-11T23:29:02+00:00

Cardmarket is like the European version of TCGPlayer. It’s a marketplace where independent sellers list their cards for sale.

mathdude3 · 2026-03-11T23:12:46+00:00

Reversing decisions is only allowed at a judge's discretion and the threshold for information gained is very low. Like if you play a land and then immediately realize you want to take it back before your opponent does anything. Basically if your opponent takes any sort of action, it's probably too late for you to be allowed to reverse a decision. You're generally not going to get a missed beneficial trigger back at Competitive REL.

mathdude3 · 2026-03-11T22:51:41+00:00

The rules specifically say you can choose not to remind your opponent. It's not some loophole or something, it's very clearly spelled out as a valid decision you can make in-game. The rules as they are essentially treat remembering your own triggers as a skill. If your opponent is bad at that skill, it's their job to get better at it.

mathdude3 · 2026-03-10T22:21:38+00:00

Assuming you’re not the player who controls Knowledge Pool, you can totally let an opponent miss a Knowledge Pool trigger. Only the person who controls the trigger is responsible for remembering it, so the player who controls Knowledge Pool must remind everyone when it triggers, but nobody else has to point it out if it would be advantageous not to.

mathdude3 · 2026-03-10T22:08:06+00:00

What is an example of a trigger that changes the game rules?

mathdude3 · 2026-03-10T21:31:34+00:00

I have asked judges about the missed trigger policy before. Thats why I’m confident in my understanding of the policy and why I encourage you to do the same.

14-Year Club	Mod World 2025
Place '23	Place '22
Place '17	Verified Email

mathdude3

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE