MTG Magic The Gathering Ask A Judge -「 F R I D A Y I ' M I N L O V E 」

1) Check Oracle. It might actually HAVE Menace (this is true of a lot of older cards that existed before their ability was keyworded; Vigilance is a good example), in which case it's a legal target. It might also, for some reason, still have the non-keyworded version (lifelink is an example, due to the weird functional change in M10)

2) "Activate" means something very specific in Magic, and this is not it. Trample does not work while blocking; the only 'exception' to this is Meglonoth because it has Super Backwards Trample.

3) That traffic was no fucking joke today

Not normally, no, because they are not players and NORMALLY aren't creatures. You'll see "Bolt your Jace" and equivalents a lot; this is actually a shortcut.

Any time a source you control would deal noncombat damage to an opponent, you may (upon that effect resolving) choose to have ALL that damage dealt to one planeswalker your opponent controls, rather than to your opponent. So the full 'proper' route would be to cast Lightning Bolt targeting your opponent, and upon resolution redirect that damage to their Jace, the Mind Sculptor; saying "Bolt your Jace" is simply proposing exactly that in the form of a shortcut to save time.

tl;dr not directly, no

Makes sense.

A face-down megamorph creature doesn't get +1/+1 counter if it was flickered(with a Cloudshift or Flickerwisp for example), right?
Also it doesn't trigger the "turned face up" abilities, right?

Kind of curious since I saw a deck-tech on youtube where they flicker an Akroma

Correct on both counts. The +1/+1 counter is part of being turned face-up by the Megamorph ability. Flickering it exiles it (which makes it a new object with no memory of, or relation to, its previous self) and then puts it back face-up. No 'turned face-up trigger' because it wasn't turned face up- it was exiled, then put onto the field already face-up. Won't trigger for the same reason Inspired doesn't trigger when you play an untapped creature- it didn't BECOME untapped, it STARTED that way.

The tech of flickering Akroma is that you pay 3 to play her, then 1 to Cloudshift her, giving you a 6/6 hasty ass-wrecker on turn 4 instead of on turn 6.

I got a bunch of old cards, and I'm having trouble Identifying the set a few came from, can someone help me?

...

When exactly can I use an instant during combat? Before damage is declared? Can it be used after defenders are assigned? Also, was there a combat stack at one point?

...

These look like they're probably from Unlimited

>galvanicAutogenitor
Oh thank god.

Rule Question: Where ya been?!

White borders, no copyright date, and single-beveled inner frame means this is Revised Edition.

All players will receive priority during the Beginning of Combat (after main phase, but before attacks are declared), Declare Attackers (after attacks are declared, but before blocks are), Declare Blockers (post blocks, pre damage), Combat Damage (after damage is dealt, still in combat), and End of Combat steps (the last chance you get to do stuff 'during combat'). You can use your instants at any of those times, as you like.

There was never a 'combat stack', because there's only one stack and it's a game zone. However, combat damage itself used to USE the stack; it would be placed onto the stack in the Damage Step, and would have to 'resolve' just like anything else on the stack did. So you could assign damage, and then do things in response to that (which is how a Mogg Fanatic could kill a 2/2). That changed in M10.

Nah, Revised. The Illustrator credit is a little lower on Revised, but the single-bevels are a dead giveaway.

Busy, mostly! I've been trying to get up threads during the weekdays when I'm not swamped with work, but sometimes I get... well, overwhelmed!

So they're not worth anything...
At least I can play with them in decks.
Thanks for the help!

Ah ok, thanks for the info about combat phases. My buddy was trying to tell me you had to use your instants after declare attackers and before declare blockers which I thought was kind of off. Also thanks for resolving the thing about the 'combat stack' now it's coming back to me. I just got back into magic recently and my memory on the rules have been kind of fuzzy. Haven't played since like M10 or so.

GA, I saw what was probably the most surreal magic judgement of my life and wanted your input on it.

We are at a modern event and player A is jund versus player B on a bizzare U/R spells... thing.

They are on game 1 and jund seems like they are in a commanding position. Player B has one turn to find his combo and he can't get his wincon. He does use reiterate to get infinite mana, but he has no wincon in hand, just warp world and djin illuminatus. What the fuck.

Player B proposea a shortcut to copying warp world 1000 times, stating that its a valid shortcut because "the outcome of my shortcut is deterministic".

Player A calls a judge who ended up pretty baffled at the situation. Player A accused B of stalling and B said "it took me ten seconds to reach my desired game state, and im passing priority to move the game forward." Player A proposes effectively resolving one warp world because its basically the same result. Player B says thats not a valid shortcut and they need to resolve each warp world.

Player A then proposes a draw and wants to go to game 2. Player B states he has " no intention of ID or conceding." He wanted to play out the game no matter what. After a lotof snide back and forth player B says " you can concede and try to win the next two games if uou dont want to draw." Livid stalling accusations come about. "How am i stalling if im just resolving my mandatory spells? I cant just pretend they arent there, thats against the rules."

Im really curious what the hell is supposed to happen here. The shop was running a small event and didnt even have an l1 present.

B was 100% in the wrong. He assumed that during 1000 (or any arbitrary and very large number) resolutions of Warp World, his desired game state would appear and he could combo off.
However, randomness doesn't work that way. It is ENTIRELY possible that both players will shuffle in their shit and immediately reveal and replay the exact same cards. Every single time. Or just never hit a specific card.
You can't shortcut unless you know the end state.

He was replicating warp world during the casting of the spell. That way, nothing random would happen until a spell actually resolved.

He argued that it wasnt even a loop because replicate "puts all of the copies on the stack a once" and that he was technically just performing one single action using a shitload of mana.

Oh. In that case he was totally correct. Replicate is deterministic, yeah. You pay (n+1) times the spell's cost as a lump sum. I'd have to check the CR for exactly how replicate resolves in minutia, but the end result is perfectly deterministic until a Warp World resolves.

But was he stalling? It seemed like he was trying to bully out a concession by forcing a fifty minute game 1 and match draw. Of course, I cant really figure out what to pin on him. Everything he did moved the game forward quickly to a deterministic state, that state just made it impossible to finish the game.

Its not even the same situation as when three oblivion rings draw the game. Warp world is random and could possibly end the game with things like etb triggers.

It seems really sketchy to me, thats all.

It's a fairly blatant case of Slow Play unless he can demonstrate that he's actually going somewhere in a hurry with his Warp World spam. He's likely not though, given how he was trying to get his opponent to concede.

I thought about that too, but it took ten seconds for him to make the mana and cast the spell (s). He then offered to resolve the warp worlds as quickly as humanly possible. Slow play states that a player is playing too slowly, but warp world fag was playing very quickly.

Very quickly playing through a thousand Warp Worlds while badgering for a concession is Slow Play unless you very clearly demonstrate that it's actually a wincon.

Player B's shortcut is invalid because they cannot tell me the two things needed for a shortcut:

The exact end state of the game that we're jumping to, and the exact number of iterations it'll take to get there. They can give me HALF of that, but not both of them, so no shortcut.

Player B also is not likely able to play out their combo, because it will very quickly run facefirst into Slow Play because they're just taking actions that aren't advancing the game state. If I suspect that Player B is doing this on purpose to eat up time, that's a flat DQ for Stalling.

Playing to not lose to run out the clock is fine, as long as you're making your plays in a reasonable amount of time and advancing the game state. The proposed scenario would almost certainly be impossible to do in a reasonable time.

Not only that, but unless I know the literal exact state of the game you're gutting to AND how many loops it takes, you can't even try to shortcut it.

Is it mathematically likely that after two billion iterations, you hit your desired state at some point? Yes. Can you tell me at exactly which iteration we hit that state? Fuck no you can't.

I have an addiction to playing with large decks (Like 100 cards+). Are large decks bad at all and do people use them competitively? I rather enjoy playing games where I can draw it out until the point where I can start doing long turns and casting several cards for le ebin outwitting. As you might expect, my favorite color to play is blue or multicolor (more than two)

I'm aware time limits exist and you're supposed to not stall but that's the reason for my question.

Generally they are bad, and people do not use them competitively.

Here's the problem: The more cards you have past the minimum of 60, the lower your chances of drawing a specific one of them are. If you have a playset of a card in a 60 card deck, you have a 1/15 chance of drawing it. In a 120 card deck, that number drops to 1/30, literally half as likely. The more cards your deck has past 60, the less consistent it is, and consistency is king. If you only win one in five games because you just keep drawing cute singleton cards instead of the piece you NEED, you're not gonna win many tournaments.

If you like 100 card decks and long games where you get to big swingy shit, I highly recommend Commander, because the decks are 99 cards, and the format lends itself very well to longer games with haymaker plays. Competitive formats tend to focus on making their decks as tight, consistent, and fast as possible. Even in a control deck, your goal isn't "Draw the game out so you can start casting several cards", it's "Interfere with your opponent's plans, stabilize against their threats, and then beat the almighty christ out of them with an easy-to-protect, hard-to-answer threat once they're running on fumes"

And with that, goodnight! Time for bed so I can be well rested for infi Commander games tomorrow.

4 Horsemen clause is invoked, player B gets a match loss for USC - Major and is dropped from the event.

Not quite. I agree that applying the 'horsemen clause' of TE - Slow Play is appropriate if the player attempts to manually perform a loop they cannot shortcut, but I disagree with your USC - Major.

USC Major is only assessed when one player's behaviors towards one or more individuals "could reasonably be expected to create a feeling of being harassed, threatened, bullied, or stalked." The needling and shitty attitude of B definitely aren't Sporting, but they're nowhere near USC Major. I wouldn't classify this (though I am seeing it secondhand and in text form, to be fair) as harassing, threatening, bullying, or stalking, I'd just classify it as being a no-class punk. An argument could be made for USC Minor because the player's behavior is disruptive, to some extent.

Also, USC Major does not come with an auto-drop, because that's not a thing. If you're upgrading USC Major, it needs to be because the offense was committed with malicious intent, because the player displays no remorse for their actions, or because the offense is repeated at a later time. If you have any of those boxes checked off, it's not "match loss and dropped', it's DQed from the event.

So, tl;dr, I'd give Player B a Warning for Slow Play and tell them that further infractions would be Game Losses. I -might- see an argument for also giving USC - Minor and giving them the polite "don't be an asshole" talk, but they would have to be SERIOUSLY belligerent for me to consider USC Major, and they'd have to cross one motherfucker of a line for me to upgrade that to a DQ-and-remove-from-venue.

A lot of DQs don't involve the leave-the-venue. A lot of them are for the dumbass 'roll to win'. Some are cheats where there's no harm in letting them stay to spectate. But the line that has to be crossed for a USC Major DQ is one where you're telling the player, in no uncertain terms, that they are not welcome at your event and they need to leave right now.

>A lot of DQs don't involve "leave the venue"
That's news to me. I have never seen a DQ that didn't immediately result in that person being thrown out of the store.

When Academy Rector dies and goes to the graveyard can I respond and exile rector with Deathrite Shaman before they can choose to exile it and search for an enchantment?

So, most of us already have a pretty good idea why, but I'd still like to hear your opinion on it:

Why is Balance banned/restricted? All formats as a whole, but particularly in EDH.

>mass blink
>Balance
>Win game

>Get rekt
>Resolve Balance
>Annoy everyone

>Mass Land Destruction

Because it's 2 mana and there's plenty of ways you can keep getting it back from grave and just lock out the game. Imagine how stupid broken it would be with a commander like Brago.

If it costed like 9-11 mana then it would be understandable. Wizards fucked up the first time they printed a 2 mana "take an extra turn card" and everyone of them since then has been super expensive. Same goes with balance imo

To be fair if someone gets DQ'd they probably pulled some nasty shit (not counting roll to win). People probably don't want them there, and they probably don't want to be near a crowd of people who really don't like them, so they'll just leave.

>Balance is unbalanced
Really makes you think

Why are you giving Player B a Warning for Slow Play? This is a set of mandatory actions, unlike 4 Horsemen. There is no reason that either player should be receiving Slow Warning violations for taking mandatory game actions in a reasonable manner. The only reason 4 Horsemen results in Slow Play is because continuing to tap and untap Basalt Monolith is optional, and there is no guaranteed effect on the gamestate; if there were an effect out that would infinitely mill a player with Emrakul in their library for example (take Mindcrank + Duskmantle Guildmage vs Emrakul + Phyrexian Unlife/Angel's Grace) there is similarly no Slow Play Warning.

The actual process of copying Warp World is not Slow Play, as it's a shortcut-able loop. The process of resolving Warp World cannot be slow play, because those are mandatory game actions.

Correct ruling: Players have to go about performing game actions (in this case, resolving several hundred copies of Warp World) at a reasonable pace. If either player does not perform these game actions at a reasonable pace, it's a game loss. As always, either player may concede, or both players may agree to a draw at any point. If the match goes to time, you may need to deviate and declare the current game a draw without finishing turns; that's perfectly fine. (1/2)

There are several existing cases of similar rulings taking place; take for example, a player casting an Ignite Memories vs an opponent with an arbitrarily high life total. Or casting Scrambleverse with an arbitrarily large number of permanents. Both of these have been covered on the (now-defunct) judge mail list to be draws for reasons listed above. You can't reasonably give players Slow Play for casting and resolving effects that result in a time-intensive set of mandatory actions, even if the game actions that led to them are optional. Player B is not breaking any rules or committing Slow Play by copying Warp World, even if it leads to a veritable mess. The only rulings that are correct to give in this situation are potential USC - Minors if players were overly aggressive to each other, and that's doubtful from the story above (I would however likely verbally caution them to knock it off).

This scenario is one of the classic judge problems often framed in the Ignite Memories/Scrambleverse context. It's eventually going to be a draw if no one does anything, though they're required to sit there and go through the actions unless either player concedes, or both players optionally agree to a draw beforehand.

Of course, this is if all the Warp Worlds resolve without any kind of resolution. If both players hit 0 permanents, suddenly Warp World becomes trivially easy to resolve, or if a player has enough token-producing effects with ETB triggers that advance the gamestate (ex. ETB ping for 1), there's a chance that resolution could be met within the time constraints of the round.

That's *casting Ignite Memories with arbitrarily high storm count vs opponent with an arbitrarily high life total.

Also, forgot my (2/2).

How does Mizzix of the Izmagnus's effect work with card that have X in their mana cost? As well as buyback based effects? I thought the ruling was that the CMC was the amount of mana spent when it was on the stack, however recently a friend told me I was wrong and I'm curious to know if I've been cheating without realizing it.

CMC is the sum of generic mana cost + total mana symbols from the top right corner of the card.

However, the CMC is irrelevant here, as Mizzix's cost reducing effect reduces the total cost of the spell. This reduces the cost of buyback, kicker, or anything else that would increase the cost of the spell (even things like Thorn of Amethyst).

For spells with X in their mana cost, Mizzix will reduce the value of X. If you cast Fireball (XR) announcing X=4, and you have 3 experience counters, the spell will cost 1R and still deal 4 damage.

So, if I have 3 experience counters on myself, and cast capsize and buy it back, do I gain an additional experience counter for that? Alternatively if cast something like Fireball (Also with the previously mentioned 3 counters) for 10, do I gain an experience counter for that?

Additionally, if it wasn't clear, if you cast Whispers of the Muse (U, Buyback 5) with buyback and 4 exp counters, Mizzix will reduce the cost of the spell to 1U.

If you cast a spell that costs R (Lightning Bolt) with Thorn of Amethyst out and at least 1 exp counter, the spell's cost will be reduced back to R. Practically the only thing in the game that Mizzix's cost reduction will not be applied to is Trinisphere, which will make your spells cost at least total of 3 mana no matter what.

Each spell will give you 1 exp counter, but like all spells you cast, the cost reduction won't apply until the next spell you cast (the triggered ability happens after you pay the cost of the spell).

Okay good, that's what I thought. Thank you for the assistance.

Ex., you play Whispers of the Muse with Buyback and 4 exp counters for 1U, and gain a 5th exp counter. You cast it again now with 5 exp counters for U, and gain a 6th exp counter.

Oh wow, I'm a moron that doesn't read cards. I remembered Mizzix as gaining an exp counter on any instant/sorcery cast, but she only gains them on spells with greater CMCs than your exp pool.

Disregard what I said about gaining exp counters. The discounts are all correct, but Whispers would only give you an exp counter if you didn't have any, and Capsize if you had less than 3.

Fireball would still work, because the value of X determines the cost of the spell (ex, a Fireball X=4 actually has a CMC of 5), but Whispers will always have a CMC of 1 and Capsize will always have a CMC of 3.

Next time I'll look up the cards before I act like an idiot and think they do something other than what they did.

Ah, fair enough and no worries mate. Then I have been playing wrong, thank you for helping me clear that up for the future.

And I'm back!

A lot of DQs are for the feel-bad infraction of "Improperly Determining a Winner". No sense throwing someone out of the venue for that when there was no malice involved, that's a double shot of shitty day.

I've also seen DQs for Cheating be a DQ, but not an ejection from the venue, usually for "you made a poor choice" cheats of opportunity where the penalty itself put the fear of god into them and you don't have to worry about them being a problem.

But yeah, sometimes they're just remorseless assholes and 'get out of my store' is the right call. It just shouldn't be the AUTOMATIC call.

Because symmetric effects are rarely actually symmetrical. It's very cheap to play and very powerful and easy to abuse.

You can. They don't exile the Rector until the trigger resolves, so it sits and waits in the graveyard in the meantime. If they CAN'T exile it upon resolution of the trigger, the 'if you do' clause won't kick in and the trigger does nothing.

Because Player B chose to create and execute that series of mandatory actions after being told they could not shortcut it, and will be sitting there not actually advancing the game-state and eating up time trying to manually perform the loop.

There's no shortcut for copying the Warp World, because there's not a block of actions. The copying is part of casting it, which is done all at once. "Mandatory" game actions can 100% be Slow Play if the player is just taking actions that aren't advancing the game state over and over again.

You also don't just auto-game loss for Slow Play, it has to be upgraded.

That is my ruling. I understand if it isn't yours, but referring back to a defunct mailing list from years ago as precedent isn't always the best option; things change.

CMC is not 'how much you spent'. CMC is Converted Mana Cost- the mana cost in the top right of the card, converted into a raw number by adding up the symbols. The only time CMC ever, ever changes is with X spells, because you declare a value for X while they're on the stack and sub that number in where the variable is (X is 0 everywhere else). A Fireball for X=5 has a CMC of 6, even if you're only paying 4 mana for it because you have 2 experience counters and a Mizzix; it will trigger that Mizzix and give you a third.

A Capsize with Buyback will have a CMC of 3, because that's the sum of the mana symbols. The fact that you paid 6 does not effect that.

Mizzix also doesn't affect the CMC, she affects the COST. Mizzix would give you a discount on that Fireball, but also give you a discount of up to 4 on that Capsize, because the whole spell is costing 4UU.
No to Capsize, yes to Fireball. The Capsize has a CMC of 3, which is not greater than the number of experience counters you have, so no trigger. The Fireball has a CMC of 11, which is more than 3, so it triggers.

>Because Player B chose to create and execute that series of mandatory actions after being told they could not shortcut it, and will be sitting there not actually advancing the game-state and eating up time trying to manually perform the loop.
>There's no shortcut for copying the Warp World, because there's not a block of actions. The copying is part of casting it, which is done all at once. "Mandatory" game actions can 100% be Slow Play if the player is just taking actions that aren't advancing the game state over and over again.
>You also don't just auto-game loss for Slow Play, it has to be upgraded.
>That is my ruling. I understand if it isn't yours, but referring back to a defunct mailing list from years ago as precedent isn't always the best option; things change.
Does this extend to casting a Scrambleverse with infinite permanents on the battlefield? Is casting your spells now slow play? What about playing Grip of Chaos or Eye of the Storm and creating a boardstate that creates mandatory actions that lead to slowplay?

If your rule is "optional actions that create manual actions that cause unwieldy boardstates are slow play," you're generalizing a rule that was meant to have a very limited scope. The Mesmeric Orb ruling was meant to be the exception, not the rule.

I think we're starting to get into corner case territory, because the only way any of this would actually come up in a sanctioned game is if someone was trying to engineer it.

As it is, it's pretty much a thought experiment, and I've given my reasoning: If your actions are basically just Slow Play wearing a hat, then they're Slow Play and I'm going to treat them accordingly. I don't like the idea of something walking like a duck, quacking like a duck, and swimming like a duck, but because of one tiny difference being considered a cat.

The difference is that the Mesmeric option is a player continuing optional game actions even after performing these optional actions doesn't change the gamestate

If you remember "Horsemyths" from when this problem originally came out (blogs.magicjudges.org/telliott/2012/11/02/horsemyths/), the only reason Mesmeric Monolith leads to slow play is because you're continuously performing several actions that do not directly advance the game at all. What loop are you objecting to here? Are you saying that copying Warp World is an action that takes an undue amount of time? That resolving spells on the stack should not be done?

For the record, what's your opinion on the infinite Scrambleverse/arbitrary Ignite Memories combo? Would you rule that a player can't play their cards because they'd lead to a set of arbitrarily large nondeterministic mandatory actions?

Let's say Worldgorger Dragon is the only creature in my GY. Is your ruling that casting Animate Dead targeting Worldgorger is a case of Slow Play?

It appears that I misremembered how this was handled; mea culpa.

And "for the record", my opinion is that we've strayed into "never gonna happen" Corner Case Land, and it's a pointless discussion to continue.

>And "for the record", my opinion is that we've strayed into "never gonna happen" Corner Case Land, and it's a pointless discussion to continue.
Agreed. I just like this discussion because it's one of the few cases of rules where things aren't clearly cut. Most MtG questions are rather boring (fortunately boring, but boring nonetheless).

Yeah; I just used to get dragged into "judgebreaker" corner cases that burnt me out, so I try to avoid them now.

Guy who posted the warp world story here.

The story gets worse afterward. The TO rules that " its not possible to quickly slow play according to the ipg." And that replicating warp world was not a shortcut, it was a single action. Therefore, player b was in his rights because saying " warp world replicate 1000" is not a loop at all. The only loop was getting the mana for it.

Player a got pissed and conceded. The same thing happened game 2 and player B won 1-0-0.

I talked with player B afterward. Turns out he literally built the deck to make fun of the tournament rules and that he had no game plan aside from badgering concessions.

Just curious, if he tries this shit again, where does he break the law? Is there a good way to say what numbers he's allowed to say with the replicate?

Do I get priority back if my opponent pays 1?

Yes. Both players receive priority each time before any object on the stack resolves.

Yes.
Them paying {1} or not paying {1} is part of Force Spike resolving. After anything resolves, priority passes around again.
You might not get priority right away if it's their turn and they use priority to do something (say, cast another spell), but you will always get priority before anything else resolves, including whatever it was you Force Spike'd.

What and where are the rules concerning maintaining deck composition between rounds of an constructed event that does not require deck lists?

The same as one that doesn't require deck lists. You have to keep the same MD and SB, and make sure that you desideboard between rounds.

In Limited events that don't require decklists, you can change the composition of your MD and SB between rounds freely. But there's no such rule for Constructed.

does a meld creature become a spell before reentering after beeing exiled? Is there any opening i could cast unsubstantiate on brisala before she enters and prevents me from casting it?

1. no
2. no, you can do nothing when a spell or ability is resolving.

I'm pretty sure that meld is a triggered ability, so you could bounce one of the two cards to be melded back into its owner's hand while the trigger is on the stack.
I'm not sure what happens later though, if the meld checks the presence of the permanents before it exiles or not. You'll have to wait gA for an answer

From talking to other judges, I got answers ranging from "I'd call that Slow Play" to "That's fine, but shitty", to "This is a corner case"

Some of us discussed it as a corner case and decided that if someone had built a deck engineered to 'force' these sorts of situations where the policy is fuzzy, to deviate in the way that makes the most sense.

The Active Player will get priority first after the spell resolves (whether or not 1 was paid), and will have to pass to the non-active player to move the game along. If they pay the 1, you'll have a chance to cast another counter.

Technically it's AFTER any object on the stack resolves.

For Constructed, same as an event WITH decklists; you need to return your deck to the 'normal' state for Game 1 of each match.

For Limited, just use Continuous Construction.

No. Your best bet would be bouncing one of the component pieces in response to the trigger.

>For Constructed, same as an event WITH decklists
Where are these rules located? I cannot find them.

MTR 2.3 and 2.7.

2.3 tells us that we can sideboard during the pre-game procedure if game actions were taken during a previous game in the match (basically just specific wording that says you can't sideboard before the first game in a match you actually play), and says nothing about decklists; this is because your deck and your sideboard are different things, so your deck needs to be JUST your deck when you start a match, no sideboard cards.

MTR 2.7 just outlines the specifics of 'registering' your deck and sideboard in the form of a decklist, at Competitive and Professional events.

Look at MTR Section 6 and Section 7; there's nothing that specifically states that Constructed rules are the same with vs w/o decklists, but MTR 7.2 specifically states,
"Players participating in Limited tournaments that do not use decklists may freely change the composition of their decks between matches by exchanging cards from their deck for cards in their sideboard without being required to return their deck to its original composition before their next match. The Head Judge or Tournament Organizer must inform players if this option is not being used prior to the start of deckbuilding. This option is not available at Competitive or Professional REL tournaments."
In comparison, MTR 6.2 contains no such rule. The MTR sets out rules for both events with and without decklists, it's just MTR 7.2's specific clause that makes a differentiation.

Also that.

Warning, pedantry incoming.
>Technically it's AFTER any object on the stack resolves.
If we want to get pedantic (which I do), it's both but there's a bit of a difference between them.
Both (or all, in 3+ player games) players will, at some point or another, get priority after any arbitrary thing resolves. However, because of other player actions, that may not be a consecutive round of priority.
However, in order for anything to resolve, both (or all) players must receive and pass priority immediately before it resolves.

Both statements are true, but the (as I read it) intended meaning was "immediately before" rather than "at some uncertain time before". Hence the statement would be incorrect for your amended version. Technically, from a very pedantic standpoint based on an interpretation of his statement's intent.

Warning: Even MORE pedantic pedantry below.
And if we want to go even further beyond, there's no assurance that any given player will get priority after any object resolves. Consider the case of a Door to Nothingness trigger resolving in a two-player game. If the game ends, that cuts the standard program flow short. However, both (or all) players will still receive priority before the Door trigger resolves.

ULTRA PEDANTRY WARNING

Door to Nothingness doesn't have a trigger

Fuck, that's what I get for not proofreading.

Similarly to this corner case, would you deal with the legacy deck "Judge Destroyer" in the same way?

If I honestly suspect that a player has brought such a deck with the sole intention of disrupting the event, we might have unpleasant words.

Can you give a good example of when layers matter? Can you give a good example of when dependencies matter? I've been trying to learn a lot more about how Magic works and the layer system is still completely opaque