Revealing Cards intentionally

124 posts / 0 new
Last post
Hi,

My question is this: are you allowed to reveal cards in your hand? I am under the impression that you cannot.
What is the penalty for revealing a card, and does it depend on the circumstances?

In a recent draft (not for money), I had 4 lands and a chandra's fury and my opponent was at 2, and I was dead on the crackback. If I tap 4 and then say something along the lines of "I have fury in hand, which deals 4 to a player, good game (asked in a questioning voice)" and reveal chandra's fury .

If my opponent replies "good game" in a dejected voice and scoops up his cards, or flips a table, or you offer him a match slip and have him sign it, is this considered a successful jedi mind trick or cheating-fraud?

Since it wasnt a sanctioned draft I did it more to see if he would see if he would fall for it not for any material gain, but was wondering if this type of play is considered acceptable in an actual tournament.
My question is this: are you allowed to reveal cards in your hand?

Yes, during a match you are welcome to voluntarily reveal information which is private to you.

One comment about drafts though: during the draft portion (ie, when you're picking cards) you are not allowed to reveal your picks (with the exception of double-faced cards)
While nothing you describe seems illegal in a technical sense, I would consider it somewhat underhanded since it relies on your opponent failing to notice a key piece of information (the fact that Chandra's Fury costs five mana), and you certainly shouldn't expect such tactics to work on more experienced players.
Rules Advisor
do you (or anyone else) know if there is a specific section of the comp rules that discusses voluntarily revealing private info (cards in hand/morphs/etc)?
From the Magic Tournament Rules:
3.12 Hidden Information

Hidden information refers to the faces of cards and other objects at which the rules of the game and format do not allow you to look.

Throughout the match, a draft, and pregame procedures, players are responsible for keeping their cards above the level of the playing surface and for making reasonable efforts to prevent hidden information from being revealed. However, players may choose to reveal their hands or any other hidden information available only to them, unless specifically prohibited by the rules. Players must not actively attempt to gain information hidden from them.


While nothing you describe seems illegal in a technical sense, I would consider it somewhat underhanded since it relies on your opponent failing to notice a key piece of information (the fact that Chandra's Fury costs five mana), and you certainly shouldn't expect such tactics to work on more experienced players.



I suppose the opportunity to use exact situation against experiences players successfully is slim, but there are certainly circumstances were a similar trick would fool even a more experienced opponent (for example, in constructed with a bunch of dual lands out, people might not check to see if you have the correct colors to cast your spells)

Whether such play is 'underhanded' probably depends a lot on the type of tournament and who you are playing. Personally I would feel comfortable doing this against someone who should "know better" (i.e. someone who is unlikely to fall for the trick anyways plays in grand prix or ptq) or the top 8 of an FNM, but not outside the top 8 of an FNM against an experienced player/someone I dont know.

Also, you might "accidentally" drop a card such as the fury pre-blockers and have another card in hand, so they might not know you dont have a 5th land, and a player who doesnt know you, even an experienced one, might fall for such a bluff if done skillfully enough, especially if you put on an act throughout playing as an excitable somewhat careless person (if I dont think it has any strategic cost, I tend to make what appear to be strategic mistakes to make my opponent underestimate me in future games in the match, i.e. I am dead on board regardless of what I draw, make a fairly bad attack, especially if I am a game up and have several cards in hand and a bunch of mana on the table and believe my opponents deck is much stronger than mine, because they may tank a long time trying to figure out what I have, making my odds of drawing increased)

Although, the discussion between a good bluff and underhanded play is pretty deep and probably deserves its own thread.
Whether such play is 'underhanded' probably depends a lot on the type of tournament and who you are playing.


No, it does not. Underhanded is underhanded, regardless of upon whom or where you attempt it.

Holy crap, next Mike Long, this one.

Scope my YouTube channel!

Here's a shout out for Scholars' Books & Games in Bridgewater, MA, and for Paladin's Place in Darmstadt, Hessen, Germany where I was stationed for two years. Support your FLGS!

Attacking the darkness since 1987, turning creatures sideways since 1994.

If you simply claimed that you had a Chandra's Fury in hand without revealing anything, that would be a bluff. What you describe is claiming (implying) that you can cast a five-mana spell with only four mana and hoping that your opponent doesn't notice this obvious mistake.
Rules Advisor
I want to be clear in that, if you make any attempt to obscure you lands in any of these situations or move you lands such that they are harder to see, it is not only underhanded but you should be DQ'ed from the tournament.

I would ask, what about a sitation where you make it seem like you can tap gavony township to make your opponent make different blocks, i.e. before he is done blocking begin to reach for your township. Would this be considered "underhanded"

Or the pen trick (making a change in your lifetotal when an opponent you think has giant growth that you want to spear in response attacks, and seeing you so quickly take it he goes 'wait, i wasnt finished' and casts growth just to get blown out.

Or Estratti's bluff vs Martell where he taps mana to pretend he has a second pump. He actually taps the mana and motions as if to play another card, and most pros consider that the best play of the year.

Maybe there is some key difference, but I fail to see how bluffing in a very competitive tournament is underhanded.

Edit: I agree that actually pretending to cast the spell is fraud and cheating. In the instance I mention say I never place the card on the table, it just reveal I have it in hand. Tapping the lands is obviously to give the (false) impression you are casting it, but you can of course tap lands for any reason. When I actually cast spells, I place them on the table (the stack). Say I have been placing spells I cast on the table throughout the match and reveal from my hand in this case.
Underhanded tactics, if not outright cheating, can in fact be good strategy. If you tried to pull that on me, I'd be annoyed, especially if I fell for it, but that doesn't mean you can't do it.
Rules Advisor
Ok, so rules wise there's nothing wrong with these tricks, though the Giant Growth/Township ones aren't really underhanded at all; when you cast Giant Growth into open removal mana you're asking for a 2-for-1, and Gavony Township is on the battlefield so they know if you do or don't have the potential to use it.

Revealing a card and hoping your opponent misreads it or trusts you too much is much more underhanded, as you're trying to pressure them into making a fatal mistake. In terms of playing to win, it can certainly be a good strategy - if you've read Sirlin.net's articles on playing to win, they mention how you need to use every legal advantage you can in order to win if you truly want to be as dominant as possible, and not doing so out of honor and expecting others to do the same purely out of honor is what can define a scrub.

However, I'd suggest you consider your context. FNM or a prerelease, for example, are pretty casual events, where the focus should largely be on fun. Sure, you might be grinding out points for GP byes or something like that, but most people there won't be, so if you pull this kind of trick off and people realise you have, you likely won't be very popular no matter how much you can rationalise it (and it's easily rationalisable, if that's even a word). At anything like a GPT or higher though, I would say it's even expected that this kind of thing could occur. The prize is much more significant, and if you deserve that prize a player should be able to avoid a trick like this by the opponent. 
I'm all about super-control in MTG. If you're able to stop my shenanigans, then there aren't enough shenanigans. Lv 1 Judge Current Decklists Sweeping Beauty (Casual) A Vision of Clones (Casual) Coming soon... more decks! :-O
...but I fail to see how bluffing in a very competitive tournament is underhanded.


There's a difference between a bluff and tapping for 4 mana and revealing a 5 CC card that would win the game if you could cast it. That's not a bluff, that's outright unsportsmanlike. It also can easily be interpreted as falling under Cheating - Fraud, which is an automatic disqualification.

Scope my YouTube channel!

Here's a shout out for Scholars' Books & Games in Bridgewater, MA, and for Paladin's Place in Darmstadt, Hessen, Germany where I was stationed for two years. Support your FLGS!

Attacking the darkness since 1987, turning creatures sideways since 1994.

...but I fail to see how bluffing in a very competitive tournament is underhanded.


There's a difference between a bluff and tapping for 4 mana and revealing a 5 CC card that would win the game if you could cast it. That's not a bluff, that's outright unsportsmanlike. It also can easily be interpreted as falling under Cheating - Fraud, which is an automatic disqualification.



As I mentioned in my initial post, Ive never tried this in a game where anything of material value was on the line because I wasnt sure if it was legitimate play. In my opinion, if you are convincing you opponent you are actually casting it, then you are committing cheating-fraud, but if you are convincing your opponent you *could* cast it, then you are bluffing.

Obviously using this against a 13 year old at their first FNM is shady in the extreme and unethical, using this trick against someone who has played on the pro tour(while unlikely to work), if not considered cheating, is less clear to me.

Edit: An earlier poster mentioned the gavony township trick didnt seem underhanded, because they know if you can use it, but sometimes, especiall in longer tournaments where fatigue sets in, people may make mistakes. In the case of the 4 mana revealing chandra's fury, once you've actually revealed the fury, I dont see as different. Also, it seems like revealing information for strategic advantage is not considered cheating or underhanded. I believe the reason many people object to the chandra example is because it may seem like you are actually casting it, which would be cheating.
Obviously using this against a 13 year old at their first FNM is shady in the extreme and unethical, using this trick against someone who has played on the pro tour(while unlikely to work), if not considered cheating, is less clear to me.



Cheating is cheating, regardless of whom you attempt it against or in what venue. What about that is difficult to understand?

Scope my YouTube channel!

Here's a shout out for Scholars' Books & Games in Bridgewater, MA, and for Paladin's Place in Darmstadt, Hessen, Germany where I was stationed for two years. Support your FLGS!

Attacking the darkness since 1987, turning creatures sideways since 1994.

To quote JaxsonBateman "Ok, so rule wise there's nothing wrong with these tricks".

If there is nothing wrong with the trick ruleswise, I fail to see how its cheating, hence why its hard to understand.

If there is nothing wrong with the trick ruleswise, I fail to see how its cheating, hence why its hard to understand.



www.wizards.com/ContentResources/Wizards...

Skip to section 5.2. Cheating - Fraud. Because apparently some people need to be told not to cheat if it isn't explicitly part of the rules.

Scope my YouTube channel!

Here's a shout out for Scholars' Books & Games in Bridgewater, MA, and for Paladin's Place in Darmstadt, Hessen, Germany where I was stationed for two years. Support your FLGS!

Attacking the darkness since 1987, turning creatures sideways since 1994.

If you reveal a card from your hand and tap lands, you're very clearly signalling that you're casting that spell. I think any neutral observer would interpret the actions that way. You'd need to actually say something like "I'm tapping these four Mountains and floating four red mana" if that's what you're doing.
I apologise, I didn't notice that tapping the lands was mentioned; skimmed the original post and just took note of the card reveal. If it was just a card reveal I wouldn't consider it attempting to intentionally, illegally cast a spell, but if you actually tap the lands that's another story. You've gone beyond just bluffing at that point because what you're doing is usually a valid representation of a spell cast.
I'm all about super-control in MTG. If you're able to stop my shenanigans, then there aren't enough shenanigans. Lv 1 Judge Current Decklists Sweeping Beauty (Casual) A Vision of Clones (Casual) Coming soon... more decks! :-O
I see what you mean adeyke. In the actual situation, I was actually playing online via a forbidden program with an explicit *reveal card* option, so it was 100% clear that I was revealing and not casting. I didn't put a lot of thought into the hypothetical situation because thats not what happened and I try to avoid mentioning such programs on these boards.

I agree that signalling you are casting the spell is cheating, and I can definitely see how your wording is better, i.e. "I tap these mountains floating four red and reveal fury", which is basically the same as just revealing fury. I would hope if I explicitly say 'I reveal fury' that wouldnt be considered cheating.

To be clear, I am asking these questions because I havent tried them and am unsure if they are legitimate ways of playing or not. Some people might consider Owen's single-blocking of a pyreheart wolf 'underhanded' but thats how the rules are. Learning to understand and play competitively, within the rules, is my goal. Not to do shady things and cheat. Also, regardless of whether I use such ways of playing, I feel its important to be aware of them if they are legal at GP or PT (if I were to qualify)

EDIT: While I see what everyone is saying, my initial example I hypothesized I said I had fury "in hand" which explicitly means I have not cast it, in my opinion?
Alright it seems to be the general consesus that

revealing cards = good
revealing cards + tapping mana explicitly stating the amount of mana + explicitly stating you are revealing = good
revealing cards + tapping mana = cheating

The act of tapping mana I got from estratti's example where he used the actual land tapping as part of the bluff. Although, in his case there was never anyway to construe the land tapping as actually casting a spell as he never revealed the pump spell he didnt have.

Also, I can certainly agree that you need to make a good faith effort to make sure your opponent understands you are revealing the spell, not casting the spell, as people dont usually reveal spells like that. Thinking about it more I feel like explicitly using the word 'reveal' seems best.
Cheating — Fraud

Definition
A person intentionally and knowingly violates or misrepresents rules, procedures, personal information, or any other relevant tournament information. Note that Fraud, like most cheating, is determined by an investigation and will often appear on the surface as a Game Play Error or Tournament Error.
Additionally, it is Fraud if a player (or teammate) notices an offense in his or her match and does not immediately call attention to it. A player who intentionally forgets triggers he or she controls is guilty of Fraud, even if the trigger is a lapsing ability. However, ignoring opponent’s missed triggers is not Fraud.
A player must be aware that he or she has committed an error in representation in order for the infraction to be Fraud. For example, a player targeting a black creature with Terror has not committed Fraud if he or she forgot that Terror can’t target black creatures, even though the action (casting Terror) was intentional and illegal. It is Fraud if a judge believes he or she was aware and hoping that his or her opponent would miss it.
One does not need to be a player in a game to commit Fraud. In particular, teammates observing a game are expected to point out problems and call a judge to help if required.



It's a slippery slope, but I could see a DQ for your actions.
You misrepresented that you were casting it - illegally, no less.
A Judge could reasonably find that your opponent reasonably thought you were casting it.
Trying to convince the Judge that you weren't based on symantics of "I was bluffing him" is likely not going to work out for you, but if nobody notices your play and the opponent fails to notice, you'll get the win. 

DCI Certified Judge & Goth/Industrial/EBM/Indie/Alternative/80's-Wave DJ
DJ Vortex

DCI Certified Judge since July 13, 2013
DCI #5209514320


My Wife's Makeup Artist Page <-- cool stuff - check it out

 

Taking offers on my set of unopened limited edition full art judge foil basic lands, message me if interested.
 

revealing cards = good
revealing cards + tapping mana explicitly stating the amount of mana + explicitly stating you are revealing = good
revealing cards + tapping mana = cheating



Estratti's bluff is actually a fourth situation: "tapping mana" on its own. You mentioned that there was no way to miscontrue his action as an actual cast. And it's true -- there's no way that tapping mana can be considered a cast, unless your opponent fills in the blanks for you. That might seem insignificant, but it's actually the substance of the fine line between being underhanded and being clever.
 he or she was aware and hoping that his or her opponent would miss it.



I fear that this is too vague for the good of the game. Actually, since you can ignore your opponent's undeclared triggers, it almost feels like the game rules are contradicting themselves.
I completely agree that Estratti's play is certainly very different from what I am suggesting, and certainly legitimate, whereas the line I am suggesting is not necessarily. To be clear, as I have repeated numberous times on this thread, the intent of the bluff I am suggesting is to show you have the spell and make your opponent believe you have the means you cast the spell. Not to make your opponent believe you have actually cast the spell.

Obviously tapping four mana, slamming chandra's fury, and getting 'wins' when your opponent doesnt notice is simply fraud, no debate whatsoever about that. 

Revealing fury and hoping your opponent concedes I learned (earlier in this thread) is legitimate.

Tapping lands and hoping my opponent quits before I reveal the burn spell is legitimate, but clearly never going to happen. If you believe your opponent makes mistakes while stressed, I suppose you could do this to raise their blood pressure and hope they make a mistake because of it is allowable, but that is going pretty deep....

I guess... do you believe  tapping lands + revealing card + explicitly saying you are revealing it = cheating?
Honestly, it matters what the Judge believes and whether or not he believes that your opponent thought you were casting it. Assuming that you even get to that point, many times you won't because  your opponent will scoop none the wiser.

but if it gets to that point and the Judge reasonably believes that your opponent thought you cast it - even if you weren't,
do you really think you'll be able to convince the Judge that you weren't casting it?

do you really think that he'll think that you weren't trying to cheat your opponent?

 

DCI Certified Judge & Goth/Industrial/EBM/Indie/Alternative/80's-Wave DJ
DJ Vortex

DCI Certified Judge since July 13, 2013
DCI #5209514320


My Wife's Makeup Artist Page <-- cool stuff - check it out

 

Taking offers on my set of unopened limited edition full art judge foil basic lands, message me if interested.
 

Honestly, it matters what the Judge believes and whether or not he believes that your opponent thought you were casting it. Assuming that you even get to that point, many times you won't because  your opponent will scoop none the wiser.

but if it gets to that point and the Judge reasonably believes that your opponent thought you cast it,
do you really think you'll be able to convince the Judge that you weren't casting it?



Well... that seems like a rhetorical question but I agree you need the opponent to agree you have not actually cast the spell,

In my opinion it is a fine line, depends on the wording, and it is important your opponent believe you have not cast the spell.

What about a situation:

4 mountains, opponent at two

You tap all the mountains, saying 'floating red mana'

then 'moment of truth, I need a searing spear or a chanra's fury, and I dont have the spear'

'but I can reveal that.... I do have the fury (excitedly reveals fury)!'

I mean, lots of people here are judges, which is why I am asking. If what I am suggesting is cheating, thats cool, I wont do it, regardless of the tournament/ If what I am doing is not cheating, then I would possibly do it in a competitive tournament environment, simple as that. 

Not an FNM goes by that my opponent opponent makes a ridiculously bad decision because they dont understand the rules and as long as they have been courteous I let them take it back, but I feel like bluffing in a legitimate way could be useful if I were to attend a grand prix or something, or am playing against people I know regularly attend grand prix or similar tournaments.

again it's open to interpretation

but you misrepresented the ability to cast Fury for

in fact, I'd also like to hear what a Judge's opinion is on this 

DCI Certified Judge & Goth/Industrial/EBM/Indie/Alternative/80's-Wave DJ
DJ Vortex

DCI Certified Judge since July 13, 2013
DCI #5209514320


My Wife's Makeup Artist Page <-- cool stuff - check it out

 

Taking offers on my set of unopened limited edition full art judge foil basic lands, message me if interested.
 

I'm not a judge, but if someone looks calmly at his opponent and says "I have this card, gg?" with all his mana open and he doesn't tap a land, I can hardly understand why the judge would get semantic and say "hey, he wasn't saying he could cast it!"

If you reveal  a card and he scoops, all right. If you reveal a card with a grin, sure. If you reveal a card and verbally tell your opponent you should be winning ("gg?"), that's cheating. If you tap your lands and reveal the card, cheating. If you imply in any way that you could cast the spell, cheating.

It's not a bluff to pretend like you can do something and hope to God your opponent doesn't realize it. Look at it the other way. If you really had the available mana to cast your spell, what should your opponent do if you flash the spell while you have priority? Ask you "go through the motion" or count your land before scooping? When you say "I have this spell that can kill you" and your opponent takes his cards, he's not conceding by any stretch of the mind, he's thinking you're killing him. That's not a bluff, it's cheating.

Let's look at the examples provided within this thread :

- Going to change your life total immediatly when he declares attackers : perfectly legal move that doesn't misrepresent any public (or derived) information. The only thing it implies is that you don't want him to cast his spell, aka strategy.
- Estratti's bluff : motionning to play a card and bringing it back to your hand only heavily implies that a hidden card is a type of spells. Again, no misrepresentation of public (or derived) information. Only a misrepresentation of hidden information.
- Reaching for Township but not activating it : once again, you're misrepresenting what you intend to do, not any information whatsoever.

Misrepresentating something your opponent doesn't have access to : bluff. Misrepresentating something he has access to : cheating.

Rules Advisor

Quotes
76783093 wrote:
56957928 wrote:
58331438 wrote:
56945988 wrote:
Rancor dies to in-response removal.
Yeah... Until next game, where it'll be right back. Seriously, there's no way to deal with Rancor in any format. It should be banned, except Gleemax is a lobbyist for the Rancor party, so that'll never happen.
You can't ban rancor, it just returns to your deck.
58331438 wrote:
57461258 wrote:
You might want to actually talk to the Flavor & Storyline Board people... since, you know, our whole reason for playing Magic is the flavor. I'm willing to bet you'll get a lot more interest there than in General.
Indeed, both posters down there would be thrilled.
57817638 wrote:
I think I wasn't direct enough in my last post. I'll try to fix it now. Ahem... NO ONE CARES there you have it.
57471038 wrote:
When talks about banning Jace first started, I was thinking that I would see him banned come June 20th. But as I think more about it, I don't really think that Jace is the problem anymore. Sure his power level leaves very little to the imagination (opening Jace is like opening a refrigerator box with a naked girl on the inside), and sure his price does have a strong impact on what players choose to play (playing Jace is like being intimate with a woman and she doesn't charge you in the morning), but it is not the source of all the problems in Standard.
76973988 wrote:
How do people think saving room to print more abilities on cards is dumbing down the game?

Do you really think, say, Akroma would ever be printed if she said, "Akroma can block by creatures with this ability and cannot be blocked by creatures without this ability.  If a creature without this ability would deal combat damage by Akroma would be destroyed, prevent all combat damage that creature would deal to Akroma this combat.  Attacking does not cause Akroma to tap.  If Akroma is blocked and deals lethal damage, it deals the remainder of its damage to the defending player.  Akroma may attack and use abilities that require tapping in the casting cost the turn it enters the battlefield.  Akroma cannot be damaged, enchanted, equipped, blocked or targeted by black or red sources" rather than her "dumbed down" wording she has?  No freaking way.  Keywording and shorthand allows them to make complicated cards easy to play with, allowing them to be printed in the first place.
57817638 wrote:
The creation of praetors was worth it just because now amoeboid changeling is a praetor.
57140668 wrote:
1. cast frankie peanuts2. ask opponent "will you concede the game this turn"? if they say yes, you win; if they say no, play a staying power
3. subsequently ask "will you attack this turn"? and "will you cast a spell this turn"? (using a Teferi, Mage of Zhalfir for the second question if necessary) to ensure they can't disrupt the combo
4. donate them a platinum angel
5. play a mox lotus and braingeyser them for every card in their library. play an opalescence and donate them a glorious anthem and a blacker lotus, then play enchanted evening. play and activate a mindslaver and then donate them a fastbond and the mox lotus (returning one of the donates to your hand with eternal witness or whatever)
6. during their turn, play every permanent in their hand (playing lands with fastbond) then (as yourself) cast mirrorweave on the blacker lotus, so every permanent becomes a copy of it. proceed to tear up every card they control, and hopefully do it before they notice that they aren't bound by staying power's ability anymore and can concede
82423538 wrote:
57471038 wrote:
82423538 wrote:
One part of the statement being true=/=the whole statement true.
Whatever. I'm still here about ten minutes away. Whenever you want to get destroyed in Magic, I'm available.
I would like to get destroyed in Magic, actually. Do you know anybody good enough?
57617478 wrote:
Please format your statements in a way that doesn't look like a baboon hit its face on your keyboard.
57140668 wrote:
why did Garruk Relentless lose a loyalty counter
Show
to get to the other side
89522235 wrote:
You're such an obvious troll that you have hexproof and : Regenerate.
56957928 wrote:
56776038 wrote:
Dark Ritual being overpowered is determined more by what is done with it than the card itself.
True, but the fact that it enables so many ridiculous things is pretty telling. It's like, sure I can use a shotgun as a bludgeoning instrument, but that doesn't make it not a shotgun.
79035425 wrote:
Shortly before Serra died, she transferred her spark into an angel whose full name was Asha Avacyn Bolas. Her dragon father groomed her for her positions in Alara and Innistrad, and she's also been getting help from her uncle Ugin in the form of Urza, who was resurrected as Marit Lage to be the avatar as which she projects herself into material realms. Grieslbrand is a split personality who sometimes wanders the planes disguised as a human woman named Liliana Vess.
97610188 wrote:
Yeah that (Content Removed) really annoys me. Moderated by MY_self right about naahowwww!
93446159 wrote:
Dilleux_Lepaire just won the thread.
57461258 wrote:
And, as usual, Dilleux wins the entire thread. Nice work, sir, nice work.
99113151 wrote:
They need to make 9 layers of zones where cards go when they "die". Much like Hell.
56778328 wrote:
Wow, holy doggy poop, kids, obvious statement is obvious.
56776038 wrote:
122053101 wrote:
i don't think your geting it WotC is trying to kill the comption to make it so that there shity app is the only one left.
I haven't tried the app. How is its use of English grammar? Cheers!
57471038 wrote:
Everyone's life would be easier if players would, instead of coming to the 'net for help with a deck, just netdeck and be done with it. And I'm not talking about some Top 8 lists, for the Casualists, too, can benefit from netdecking. I've netdecked plenty of decks from the Casual Play forums from users such as Mown, Raedien, Floopfoot, and a few others. I snatched straight the heck out of my web browser. Yes, people, your original idea fell victim to a savage netdecker. You have been assimiliated. Suppose I wanted a Zombie deck. Why on earth would I spend time searching Gatherer for a decent list of Zombie cards when Raedien already did it for me? Taking time to be creative or waiting on people on the forums to tell you why your deck sucks or 'go to Casual forums' is a disasterous waste of time (to me).
56957928 wrote:
82423538 wrote:
If WotC started putting $100 bills in packs, the players would complain that they folded them wrong.
No, they just spam them with ban requests. That being said, Magic was ruined back in Alpha when they added all that rules and cards [Debutantes avert your eyes]. My friends and I still like playing it the "pure" way (Basically we go into the woods and hit eachother with wiffle bats while shouting made up obscenities. You know, the way Garfield wanted it to be played).
56957928 wrote:
Don't worry about it. I've come up with a list of changes to fix EDH. -First off, there's no commander. -The minimum deck size is 60 cards, and each deck can have up to four of each card, save basic lands and relentless rats. Also decks have no color identity. -Starting life total is 20. And voila, now things are balanced.
89522235 wrote:
Here's a clever play you can try yourself: -Convince friend to run relentless rats.dec in legacy tournament -Get a deck with lots of mill, yixlid jailer, and humility -Drop humility and jailer, wait for him to dump his hand, mill him out -All his rats now have no abilities. Call a judge because he's playing an illegal deck with more than 4 of a single card. -Get him/her banned from competitive magic play
142055101 wrote:
But how to mark them without making the individual sleeve different! You could buy a skunk and slam it's butt on you deck (pardon the french) Then after the game just sniff at your opponent's pile of cards and you will know if any of your cards are there!!!
141434757 wrote:
In Soviet Russia, Sorin opens You
71235715 wrote:
L, is for the leather gloves you weaaaar. O, is for the organs that guy could spaaaare. V, is very very, extraordinay. E, is for every vagrant i butchered in a wine cellar befooooore.
57052258 wrote:
The outer layer of the Magic: the Gathering box, the carton, or crust, is fairly thin and light, and contains largely aluminosilcates. Within that lies the middle layer, consisting of the familiar booster pack. Although solid, the booster packs' high temperatures allow them to acutally move around within the booster box. This flow, sometimes called convection, is cited by frustrated box mappers as one of WOTC's most genious uses of thermodynamics since the Ravnica block. No one knows what lies at the core of the booster box, but scientists theorize that it must be especially dense in order to make up for the large amount of fluff distributed amongst the booster packs.
58232598 wrote:
88993869 wrote:
Torpor Orb is absolutely godawful against Vexing Devil.
whoever is playing vexing devil is probably losing anyways
56957928 wrote:
I imagine [Ajani 3's] second ability involves him hurling the creature at your opponent Brion Stoutarm style, then the guy is just like "Okay, that may have worked, but don't- GOD DAMN IT!" as he does it again because cats don't give a **** :33.
56957928 wrote:
"Do or do not, there is no try." - Albus Dumbledore, The Lord of the Rings.
89522235 wrote:
68978039 wrote:
Its like that one time Elves broke out in a field of Jund. Elves became a resurgent hit, then died off again once Jund adapted to the rest of the field of G/W that it required mass removal that inherently pooped on Elves too. Submit to the menace. Delver can, and will blot out the sun.
Then we shall play in the shade.
89522235 wrote:
I'm sorry, this forum isn't for getting bad advice on mediocre decks, that's standard deck help. This forum is for starting ****storms.
97820278 wrote:
139359831 wrote:
Your advice would only lead me to make generic, boring, and unworthy content. It's of no use to me.
I just got this image of you as an architect, having finished a building suspended by only a small pole in its southwest corner, saying it's original. Then the building collapses.
56957928 wrote:
I for one love the flavor of legendary lands. "I remember my days as a youth at Tolarian Academy." "Wow, small multiverse, I actually went there too." "WAIT, DON'T- Well ****, there's $200,000 in student loans well spent."
56957928 wrote:
And flavor goes out the window when you cast a second copy of a planeswalker right after the first one dies, so... "Hey Nissa, I need a favor." "You just asked me for a 'favor' like thirty seconds ago, and it turned out to be having Sarkhan Transmogrify my only follower into a dragon like 5 times -which dickery aside also violates some laws of causality - and then you let me get beaten over the head by that hedron crab." "...I'll give you " "...Well all right then."
57150868 wrote:
GM, I don't think Dill is better than you. I KNOW it. Even if he wakes up every morning, clubs a baby seal, steals all the TV remotes from within a block's radius of his house and then robs hungry orphans of their food he'd be better than you, for the simple reason that he learns from his mistakes.
143211137 wrote:
57033358 wrote:
Tamiyo vs. Gideon
What would they have to fight about? Like, all I can think of now is Gideon going "Hey, long-ears! I'm gathering a group of 'Walkers together to fight some tentacle monsters.....you want in?" and Tamiyo going "Ew! Hentai no bakka Gideon-desu desu!" and flying away.
76783093 wrote:
I open 4 packs just to be on the safe side. Not only do I get more cards than everyone else, but I also get to spend the rest of the night off. Win Win.
191752181 wrote:
MaRo has a thing for people opening boosters with bad cards. But since he can only get so many bad cards printed in each set, he has found a devious way of getting more bad cards into circulation: He makes entire print sheets with just bad rares, then puts them onto the assembly line. He proceeds to wring his hands and twirl his evil mustache that he grew for twirling purposes as a lightning bolt strikes in the background. Afterwards, he goes to make sure that the good cards are only opened by everyone's friends, and that we all only get to open bad cards. He does this by memorising each booster, than switching them around accordingly. Whenever someone complains about a card, he immediately jumps out from behind a chair to yell "WELL, IT'S NOT FOR YOU!" before merging back into the shadows in order to devise new ways in which he can screw over players, then claim that he has valid reasons for doing so.
97820278 wrote:
192729031 wrote:
You open a booster pack, and staring back at you from the rare slot is a Lotleth Troll? At least I can stick him in my EDH deck and still have four for my standard constructed.
Because lol troll
56874518 wrote:
It helped that I more or less skipped most of GM_Champion's longer diatribes. I only have so many brain cells I'm willing to sacrifice each day.
192931349 wrote:
Mark Rosewater is sitting in a seemingly innocuous cable TV van, outside of Bankaimastery's house. Sitting nearby are two hardened criminal hackers, fresh out of prison, and filled with resentment at their lack of physical fitness. "Have you managed to hack his brainwaves yet? The set deadline's coming up fast." "We're almost through. It should be coming up on the screen any second." The hacker presses a button, and Kevin's thoughts flash onto the screen. Mark and the hackers stare in amazement at the sheer beauty, the elegance, and the raw truth of what they see. It's like the ending to 2001: A Space Odyssey. Brilliant light shines across the screen, the truth of existence is made clear to them, and they despair at their own foolishness, their own ignorance, their own inadequacy. And then they steal his ideas. As they return back to R&D, Mark sneers at a haggard old man chained to a cast-iron sphere. The man looks up from his laborious task of breaking rocks in the dungeon of Wizards of the Coast headquarters, and asks a question: "Kevin, my greatest student. He - he's all right, isn't he? You didn't hurt him?" Mark deals him a weighty blow with his boot. "Know your place, Richard. Get back to work."
57023768 wrote:
Now show me on the Garruk doll where Zac Hill ruined your enjoyment of Magic...
63711769 wrote:
I'm only opposed to it because it bears so little relation to how people actually play the game. The example of Miracles is actually a much better one then the Clone example I was trying to use. From the game's perspective, the card can move instantly from face down in the library to revealed in the hand and that's fine for the rules. But in real life, we can't actually do that, so the card spends a good bit of time in locations that are neither where that player's library is nor where that player's hand is. And that's fine for real life. What I don't want is the disconnect to be explicitly codified. Along the lines of
183664.697 A game of Magic as laid out by these rules exists only as a pure Platonic ideal, utterly unrealizable by fallible mortals limited by the confines of physicality and the ravages of evil and sin. 183664.698 The cake is a lie, too.
I know it's true, but I don't want the rules to actually straight-up tell me that.
147137503 wrote:
77120821 wrote:
Pfft this cant be serious can it? If it is please delete your account OP. Its not even close to ban worthy, considering what JTMS and stoneforge had to accomplish to get banned i see the WotC selling magic to aquire Pokemon before that ever happens.
I'm trying to imagine sorin markov as a gym leader in one of those pokemon games which you have to beat him to get his badge... somehow I imagine that he would stab you in the chest with his sword before giving you the badge, even if you beat his pokemon....
196239043 wrote:
Personally, I'd be fine with tea time but then I'm not gonna waste the mana summoning Emrakul, the Aeons Torn. He always takes all the sugar, drinks the whole pot of Earl Grey and doesn't even say thank you. SO. RUDE.

 

JustTerrorIt wrote:

 

JuliusPringle wrote:

All I want to do is sit down and play magic, but when I walked in yesterday, (since I didn't talk to anyone) nobody talked to me and I silently bought what I wanted and walked out.


If you don't talk to anyone, that increases the odds that no one will talk to you.

 

JuliusPringle wrote:

So how do I just... introduce myself? "Hi, my name is Adam, wanna play magic with me?" Do I go to the counter and talk to the cashier?


Yeah. Talk to the cashier. Tell him/her that you want a Black Lotus, and if they don't have one tell them that the store isn't on par with what you expected.

 

Reach into your back left pocket. Pull out a deck list that you copied directly from some ChannelFireball top 8 Standard discussion, and ask for all the cards, as is, on that list. Then, ask for some random, probably terrible cards from whatever set is Standard legal. Say it's tech for the upcoming changes in the metagame.

 

Pull out a deck, and tell some random dude you wanna test (you have to use the term "test" for this to work) for Standard. Make sure that deck contains Kitchen Finks and Alluring Siren. Maybe throw in Nyxathid for good measure.

 

Finally, before you leave, spill (make it look like an accident) one hundred singleton, random cards onto the floor. Pick them up, put them in a pile, and say "EEE-DEE-AYCH".

 

I know this sounds dumb at first, but it will work. With the method outlined above, you will draw the attention of players that play older formats by asking for cards that no one on Earth can reasonably afford. You will get the attention of the wanna-be pro, Stomp-n00bz players by pulling out a well known decklist and declare that you have "tech" to make it better. You will get the attention of all the kind, helpful players by seemingly not knowing the most common format by having non-Standard legal cards in a deck that you claim is Standard legal. Finally, you catch all the rest of the Magic players by saying "EEE-DEE-AYCH" (EDH (or Commander)).

And there you have it. You will be talking to more people than you would have wanted to talk to in no time.

 

Smoke_Stack wrote:

EDH is the best format anyway


See, it's starting already.

 

Break the Card
What is Break the Card?
Break the Card is a regular thread in the Cards and Combo Forum. Quite simply, the participants are given a Johnnystatic card (e.g. Xenograft) and are asked to build a deck around it. The winner and honorable mentions are sigged below. Get brewing!
Week 1 : Xenograft
This week's Break the Card was based around Xenograft. Thread : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/27681049/Break_the_card_:_Xenograft?pg=1 Winner : Axterix with his Vampdrazi deck. Finalist : Vektor480 with his Ally/Golem/Plant deck. Honorable mentions : Zammm for the Turntimber Ranger combo and TinGorilla for suggesting Sarkhan the Mad.
Week 2 : Mindlock Orb
Here's the link to the Mindlock Orb contest : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/27697565/Break_the_Card_:_Mindlock_Orb?sdb=1&pg=last#497536269 Winner : Axterix with his Maralen of the Mornsong deck. Honorable mentions : Void_Elemental.
Week 3 : Bludgeon Brawl
Here's the link to Break the Card : Bludgeon Brawl : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/27715169/Break_the_Card_:_Bludgeon_Brawl?sdb=1&pg=last#498208797 Winner : Vektor and his Grab the World deck. Finalist : Crandor with his Awesome Aliteration deck. Honorable mentions : RP Jesus with his Wat deck and Zix200 with his Signet Renewal deck.
Week 4 : Followed Footsteps
This week was Followed Footsteps : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/27748677/Break_the_Card_:_Followed_Footsteps?pg=1 Winner : Tevish_Szat with his Exponential Growth deck. Honorable mentions : Zix with his Carbon Copies deck and Escef with his Fungus of Speed and Time deck.
Week 5 : Delaying Shield
This week's card was Delaying Shield : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/27790101/Break_the_Card_:_Delaying_Shield Winner : Tevish_Szat. Finalist : Vampire_Bat. Honorable Mention : Zix200.
Week 6 : Painter's Servant
This week's card was Painter's Servant : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/27940861/Break_the_Card_:_Painters_Servant?pg=1 Winner : Tevish_Szat with his Paint it Black deck. Finalist : Wprundv with his Tiger, Tiger Painted Bright deck.
Week 7 : Venser, the Sojourner
This week's card was Venser, the Sojourner : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/27977489/Break_the_Card_:_Venser,_the_Sojourner Winner : Izzett with her "Venser, Trickster Trader" deck. Finalist : Wprundv with his "Tactical Sojourner Action" deck.
Week 8 : Personal Sanctuary
This week's card was Personal Sanctuary : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/28005461/Break_the_card_:_Personal_Sanctuary Winner : MrQuizzles. Honorable mention : Vampire_Bat and UbberSheep
Week 9 : Sundial of the Infinite
This week's card was Sundial of the Infinite : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/28038277/Break_the_card_:_Sundial_of_the_Infinite Finalist : Izzett with her "Afterlife Trespassers" deck. Winner : Xeromus with his "Fortune 500" deck.
Week 10 : Jace's Archivist
This week's card was Jace's Archivist : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/28063377/Break_the_Card_:_Jaces_Archivist. Finalists : Jentaru with his "Consecration of the Draw" deck and HereticSmitty with his "ADHD: The deck" deck. Winner : JaxsonBateman with his "The Archives Are Endless!" deck.
Week 11 : Search the City
This week's card was Search the City : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/29518555/Break_the_Card_:_Search_the_City Finalist : Mown with "A Thousand Footsteps". Winner : Desolation_masticore with "Burn the City".
Week 12 : Fiend Hunter
This week's card was Fiend Hunter : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/29530975/Break_the_Card_:_Fiend_Hunter Winner : Yuyu63 with "Carnival Hunting". Honorable mention : Dknowle's "Champion the Fiend".
Week 13 : Clock of Omens
This week's card was Clock of Omens : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/29541549/Break_the_Card_:_Clock_of_Omens?pg=1 Winner : Dknowle's "The Myrs Go Marching".
Week 14 : Light of Sanction
This week's card was Light of Sanction : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/29607219/Break_the_Card_:_Light_of_Sanction?pg=1 Winner : Zauzich's "Divine Plague".
Week 15 : Assemble the Legion
This week's card was Assemble the Legion : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/29662307/Break_the_Card_:_Assemble_the_Legion Winner : JBTM's "Some Assembly Required".
Week 16 : High Tide
This week's cards were High Tide and/or Bubbling Muck : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/29760427/Break_the_Card_:_High_Tide Winner : Mown's "Puppet Strings".
Week 17 : Illusionist's Bracers
This week's card was Illusionist's Bracers : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/29776943/Break_the_Card_:_Illusionistss_Bracers Winner : Enigma256's "Tezzeret's Bracers"
Week 18 : Savor the Moment
This week's card was Savor the Moment : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/29787235/Break_the_Card_:_Savor_the_Moment Winner : POSValkir's "A Savory Filibuster!"
Week 19 : Grinning Ignus
This week's card was Grinning Ignus : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/29795547/Break_the_Card_:_Grinning_Ignus Winner : dknowle's "Luren' and Laughin'".
Week 20 : Transcendence
This week's card was Transcendence : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/29806481/Break_the_Card_:_Transcendence Winners : Mown's "Transcending Timing Restrictions" and Dknowle's "Blinded by Greed", tied for the win.
Week 21 : Mortus Strider
This week's card was Mortus Strider : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/29818471/Break_the_Card_:_Mortus_Strider Winner : SimonGlume's "Mortus Head".
Week 22 : High Priest of Penance
This week's card was High Priest of Penance : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/29917231/Break_the_Card_High_Priest_of_Penance Winners : JBTM's "Two Clerics and a Goblin walk into a (Bom)bar(dment)..." and POSValkir1's "Choke Their Rivers with Our Dead!".
Week 23 : False Cure
This week's card was False Cure :http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/29964239/Break_the_Card_:_False_Cure Winner : Dknowle's "When Hippos Fly".

Week 24 : Akroan Horse

This week's card was Akroan Horse : http://community.wizards.com/forum/cards-and-combos/threads/4024821.

Winner : Dknowle's "Indian Giver".

Week 25 : Leylines

This week saw multiple cards being in the contest : all of the Leylines! http://community.wizards.com/forum/cards-and-combos/threads/4067621

Winner : POSValkir1's "Laying the Battle Lines".

In this game case "good game" is not misrepresentative. It is the end of the game. Your opponent is quite likely to respond "yah good game, looks like you were just a mana short". In fact, thats what will happen 99% of the time. Its not at all uncommon for a player to "tap out" before conceding, just to make their opponent sweat a bit before giving them the win, then revealing your hand to show how close you were. In fact, given that 'good game' has been said, its more likely said first by the losing player, as an admission of guilt, than by a winning player as a means of asking if the game is over. Its like a missed trigger, you can choose for your opponent to get the trigger or not, in this case, its good game, but your opponent can choose whether to win or concede. Obviously tone of voice will matter here, but if you use a neutral tone and your opponent chooses to concede I hardly see how that is misrepresentative. Heck, this kind of situation could legitimately come up unintentionally on the part of the chandra's fury player if they arent the type to show much emotion win or lose.

Here, I am misrepresenting what I will do, but tapping lands is certainly legal, and so is revealing cards. Declaring it is the end of the game when it is the end of the game is likewise not misrepresentative. Saying something like 'you lose' is definitely cheating I agree. Slamming fury, sliming broadly, and saying good game is also cheating.

Also, my most recent wording explicitly uses the word 'reveal' , mana 'floating' and stays away from 'good game', instead going for 'i need a chandra's fury'. Claiming you need cards, even cards you dont have, is perfectly legitimate as far as I know. Maybe you say 'need to topdeck bonfire' in the hopes your opponent will play around it.

I realize some of these arguments are stretches, which is why I bring this up here rather than go around attempting this at random tournaments.
 

I guess, it seems to me, if you combine a bunch of legitimate game actions in such a way as to make your opponent believe something that is not true, even if that is your intent, is that necessarily cheating?
So, out of curiosity, if your opponent responded to you showing Chandra's Fury with, "Yeah, good game," and picked up his cards, who is the one who actually conceded the game? You might both legitimately believe the other player did, given the circumstances.
Rules Advisor
In that case the fury player loses. There is no other legit viewpoint I think.

"So, out of curiosity, if your opponent responded to you showing Chandra's Fury with, "Yeah, good game," and picked up his cards, who is the one who actually conceded the game? You might both legitimately believe the other player did, given the circumstances. "

If you want to see if your opponent bought what we are debating is a bluff or cheating, you can simply hand them the match slip and you sign it either way regardless if he markes you lost or you won.

Either way, there is no legitimate way for you to debate that he conceded. The opponent needs to make the leap that he lost, you cant make it for them.
It's not just about your actions, it's about your intentions. If a judge was even called over, he'd basically just have to talk to you and decide for himself whether he thinks your intention was to mislead your opponent to a concession.

There's no hard rule that will be applied in all cases. It's literally "If a judge is even called, he'll look at the facts and make a call."
I'd find it hard to believe that a player who reaveals a card from his hand that could win him the game if he had the lands and ask "GG?" wouldn't be trying to misrepresent the game state. A player who knows he's losing will show the card, say "gg" in a neutral tone and pick up his cards, since he's conceding.

Rules Advisor

Quotes
76783093 wrote:
56957928 wrote:
58331438 wrote:
56945988 wrote:
Rancor dies to in-response removal.
Yeah... Until next game, where it'll be right back. Seriously, there's no way to deal with Rancor in any format. It should be banned, except Gleemax is a lobbyist for the Rancor party, so that'll never happen.
You can't ban rancor, it just returns to your deck.
58331438 wrote:
57461258 wrote:
You might want to actually talk to the Flavor & Storyline Board people... since, you know, our whole reason for playing Magic is the flavor. I'm willing to bet you'll get a lot more interest there than in General.
Indeed, both posters down there would be thrilled.
57817638 wrote:
I think I wasn't direct enough in my last post. I'll try to fix it now. Ahem... NO ONE CARES there you have it.
57471038 wrote:
When talks about banning Jace first started, I was thinking that I would see him banned come June 20th. But as I think more about it, I don't really think that Jace is the problem anymore. Sure his power level leaves very little to the imagination (opening Jace is like opening a refrigerator box with a naked girl on the inside), and sure his price does have a strong impact on what players choose to play (playing Jace is like being intimate with a woman and she doesn't charge you in the morning), but it is not the source of all the problems in Standard.
76973988 wrote:
How do people think saving room to print more abilities on cards is dumbing down the game?

Do you really think, say, Akroma would ever be printed if she said, "Akroma can block by creatures with this ability and cannot be blocked by creatures without this ability.  If a creature without this ability would deal combat damage by Akroma would be destroyed, prevent all combat damage that creature would deal to Akroma this combat.  Attacking does not cause Akroma to tap.  If Akroma is blocked and deals lethal damage, it deals the remainder of its damage to the defending player.  Akroma may attack and use abilities that require tapping in the casting cost the turn it enters the battlefield.  Akroma cannot be damaged, enchanted, equipped, blocked or targeted by black or red sources" rather than her "dumbed down" wording she has?  No freaking way.  Keywording and shorthand allows them to make complicated cards easy to play with, allowing them to be printed in the first place.
57817638 wrote:
The creation of praetors was worth it just because now amoeboid changeling is a praetor.
57140668 wrote:
1. cast frankie peanuts2. ask opponent "will you concede the game this turn"? if they say yes, you win; if they say no, play a staying power
3. subsequently ask "will you attack this turn"? and "will you cast a spell this turn"? (using a Teferi, Mage of Zhalfir for the second question if necessary) to ensure they can't disrupt the combo
4. donate them a platinum angel
5. play a mox lotus and braingeyser them for every card in their library. play an opalescence and donate them a glorious anthem and a blacker lotus, then play enchanted evening. play and activate a mindslaver and then donate them a fastbond and the mox lotus (returning one of the donates to your hand with eternal witness or whatever)
6. during their turn, play every permanent in their hand (playing lands with fastbond) then (as yourself) cast mirrorweave on the blacker lotus, so every permanent becomes a copy of it. proceed to tear up every card they control, and hopefully do it before they notice that they aren't bound by staying power's ability anymore and can concede
82423538 wrote:
57471038 wrote:
82423538 wrote:
One part of the statement being true=/=the whole statement true.
Whatever. I'm still here about ten minutes away. Whenever you want to get destroyed in Magic, I'm available.
I would like to get destroyed in Magic, actually. Do you know anybody good enough?
57617478 wrote:
Please format your statements in a way that doesn't look like a baboon hit its face on your keyboard.
57140668 wrote:
why did Garruk Relentless lose a loyalty counter
Show
to get to the other side
89522235 wrote:
You're such an obvious troll that you have hexproof and : Regenerate.
56957928 wrote:
56776038 wrote:
Dark Ritual being overpowered is determined more by what is done with it than the card itself.
True, but the fact that it enables so many ridiculous things is pretty telling. It's like, sure I can use a shotgun as a bludgeoning instrument, but that doesn't make it not a shotgun.
79035425 wrote:
Shortly before Serra died, she transferred her spark into an angel whose full name was Asha Avacyn Bolas. Her dragon father groomed her for her positions in Alara and Innistrad, and she's also been getting help from her uncle Ugin in the form of Urza, who was resurrected as Marit Lage to be the avatar as which she projects herself into material realms. Grieslbrand is a split personality who sometimes wanders the planes disguised as a human woman named Liliana Vess.
97610188 wrote:
Yeah that (Content Removed) really annoys me. Moderated by MY_self right about naahowwww!
93446159 wrote:
Dilleux_Lepaire just won the thread.
57461258 wrote:
And, as usual, Dilleux wins the entire thread. Nice work, sir, nice work.
99113151 wrote:
They need to make 9 layers of zones where cards go when they "die". Much like Hell.
56778328 wrote:
Wow, holy doggy poop, kids, obvious statement is obvious.
56776038 wrote:
122053101 wrote:
i don't think your geting it WotC is trying to kill the comption to make it so that there shity app is the only one left.
I haven't tried the app. How is its use of English grammar? Cheers!
57471038 wrote:
Everyone's life would be easier if players would, instead of coming to the 'net for help with a deck, just netdeck and be done with it. And I'm not talking about some Top 8 lists, for the Casualists, too, can benefit from netdecking. I've netdecked plenty of decks from the Casual Play forums from users such as Mown, Raedien, Floopfoot, and a few others. I snatched straight the heck out of my web browser. Yes, people, your original idea fell victim to a savage netdecker. You have been assimiliated. Suppose I wanted a Zombie deck. Why on earth would I spend time searching Gatherer for a decent list of Zombie cards when Raedien already did it for me? Taking time to be creative or waiting on people on the forums to tell you why your deck sucks or 'go to Casual forums' is a disasterous waste of time (to me).
56957928 wrote:
82423538 wrote:
If WotC started putting $100 bills in packs, the players would complain that they folded them wrong.
No, they just spam them with ban requests. That being said, Magic was ruined back in Alpha when they added all that rules and cards [Debutantes avert your eyes]. My friends and I still like playing it the "pure" way (Basically we go into the woods and hit eachother with wiffle bats while shouting made up obscenities. You know, the way Garfield wanted it to be played).
56957928 wrote:
Don't worry about it. I've come up with a list of changes to fix EDH. -First off, there's no commander. -The minimum deck size is 60 cards, and each deck can have up to four of each card, save basic lands and relentless rats. Also decks have no color identity. -Starting life total is 20. And voila, now things are balanced.
89522235 wrote:
Here's a clever play you can try yourself: -Convince friend to run relentless rats.dec in legacy tournament -Get a deck with lots of mill, yixlid jailer, and humility -Drop humility and jailer, wait for him to dump his hand, mill him out -All his rats now have no abilities. Call a judge because he's playing an illegal deck with more than 4 of a single card. -Get him/her banned from competitive magic play
142055101 wrote:
But how to mark them without making the individual sleeve different! You could buy a skunk and slam it's butt on you deck (pardon the french) Then after the game just sniff at your opponent's pile of cards and you will know if any of your cards are there!!!
141434757 wrote:
In Soviet Russia, Sorin opens You
71235715 wrote:
L, is for the leather gloves you weaaaar. O, is for the organs that guy could spaaaare. V, is very very, extraordinay. E, is for every vagrant i butchered in a wine cellar befooooore.
57052258 wrote:
The outer layer of the Magic: the Gathering box, the carton, or crust, is fairly thin and light, and contains largely aluminosilcates. Within that lies the middle layer, consisting of the familiar booster pack. Although solid, the booster packs' high temperatures allow them to acutally move around within the booster box. This flow, sometimes called convection, is cited by frustrated box mappers as one of WOTC's most genious uses of thermodynamics since the Ravnica block. No one knows what lies at the core of the booster box, but scientists theorize that it must be especially dense in order to make up for the large amount of fluff distributed amongst the booster packs.
58232598 wrote:
88993869 wrote:
Torpor Orb is absolutely godawful against Vexing Devil.
whoever is playing vexing devil is probably losing anyways
56957928 wrote:
I imagine [Ajani 3's] second ability involves him hurling the creature at your opponent Brion Stoutarm style, then the guy is just like "Okay, that may have worked, but don't- GOD DAMN IT!" as he does it again because cats don't give a **** :33.
56957928 wrote:
"Do or do not, there is no try." - Albus Dumbledore, The Lord of the Rings.
89522235 wrote:
68978039 wrote:
Its like that one time Elves broke out in a field of Jund. Elves became a resurgent hit, then died off again once Jund adapted to the rest of the field of G/W that it required mass removal that inherently pooped on Elves too. Submit to the menace. Delver can, and will blot out the sun.
Then we shall play in the shade.
89522235 wrote:
I'm sorry, this forum isn't for getting bad advice on mediocre decks, that's standard deck help. This forum is for starting ****storms.
97820278 wrote:
139359831 wrote:
Your advice would only lead me to make generic, boring, and unworthy content. It's of no use to me.
I just got this image of you as an architect, having finished a building suspended by only a small pole in its southwest corner, saying it's original. Then the building collapses.
56957928 wrote:
I for one love the flavor of legendary lands. "I remember my days as a youth at Tolarian Academy." "Wow, small multiverse, I actually went there too." "WAIT, DON'T- Well ****, there's $200,000 in student loans well spent."
56957928 wrote:
And flavor goes out the window when you cast a second copy of a planeswalker right after the first one dies, so... "Hey Nissa, I need a favor." "You just asked me for a 'favor' like thirty seconds ago, and it turned out to be having Sarkhan Transmogrify my only follower into a dragon like 5 times -which dickery aside also violates some laws of causality - and then you let me get beaten over the head by that hedron crab." "...I'll give you " "...Well all right then."
57150868 wrote:
GM, I don't think Dill is better than you. I KNOW it. Even if he wakes up every morning, clubs a baby seal, steals all the TV remotes from within a block's radius of his house and then robs hungry orphans of their food he'd be better than you, for the simple reason that he learns from his mistakes.
143211137 wrote:
57033358 wrote:
Tamiyo vs. Gideon
What would they have to fight about? Like, all I can think of now is Gideon going "Hey, long-ears! I'm gathering a group of 'Walkers together to fight some tentacle monsters.....you want in?" and Tamiyo going "Ew! Hentai no bakka Gideon-desu desu!" and flying away.
76783093 wrote:
I open 4 packs just to be on the safe side. Not only do I get more cards than everyone else, but I also get to spend the rest of the night off. Win Win.
191752181 wrote:
MaRo has a thing for people opening boosters with bad cards. But since he can only get so many bad cards printed in each set, he has found a devious way of getting more bad cards into circulation: He makes entire print sheets with just bad rares, then puts them onto the assembly line. He proceeds to wring his hands and twirl his evil mustache that he grew for twirling purposes as a lightning bolt strikes in the background. Afterwards, he goes to make sure that the good cards are only opened by everyone's friends, and that we all only get to open bad cards. He does this by memorising each booster, than switching them around accordingly. Whenever someone complains about a card, he immediately jumps out from behind a chair to yell "WELL, IT'S NOT FOR YOU!" before merging back into the shadows in order to devise new ways in which he can screw over players, then claim that he has valid reasons for doing so.
97820278 wrote:
192729031 wrote:
You open a booster pack, and staring back at you from the rare slot is a Lotleth Troll? At least I can stick him in my EDH deck and still have four for my standard constructed.
Because lol troll
56874518 wrote:
It helped that I more or less skipped most of GM_Champion's longer diatribes. I only have so many brain cells I'm willing to sacrifice each day.
192931349 wrote:
Mark Rosewater is sitting in a seemingly innocuous cable TV van, outside of Bankaimastery's house. Sitting nearby are two hardened criminal hackers, fresh out of prison, and filled with resentment at their lack of physical fitness. "Have you managed to hack his brainwaves yet? The set deadline's coming up fast." "We're almost through. It should be coming up on the screen any second." The hacker presses a button, and Kevin's thoughts flash onto the screen. Mark and the hackers stare in amazement at the sheer beauty, the elegance, and the raw truth of what they see. It's like the ending to 2001: A Space Odyssey. Brilliant light shines across the screen, the truth of existence is made clear to them, and they despair at their own foolishness, their own ignorance, their own inadequacy. And then they steal his ideas. As they return back to R&D, Mark sneers at a haggard old man chained to a cast-iron sphere. The man looks up from his laborious task of breaking rocks in the dungeon of Wizards of the Coast headquarters, and asks a question: "Kevin, my greatest student. He - he's all right, isn't he? You didn't hurt him?" Mark deals him a weighty blow with his boot. "Know your place, Richard. Get back to work."
57023768 wrote:
Now show me on the Garruk doll where Zac Hill ruined your enjoyment of Magic...
63711769 wrote:
I'm only opposed to it because it bears so little relation to how people actually play the game. The example of Miracles is actually a much better one then the Clone example I was trying to use. From the game's perspective, the card can move instantly from face down in the library to revealed in the hand and that's fine for the rules. But in real life, we can't actually do that, so the card spends a good bit of time in locations that are neither where that player's library is nor where that player's hand is. And that's fine for real life. What I don't want is the disconnect to be explicitly codified. Along the lines of
183664.697 A game of Magic as laid out by these rules exists only as a pure Platonic ideal, utterly unrealizable by fallible mortals limited by the confines of physicality and the ravages of evil and sin. 183664.698 The cake is a lie, too.
I know it's true, but I don't want the rules to actually straight-up tell me that.
147137503 wrote:
77120821 wrote:
Pfft this cant be serious can it? If it is please delete your account OP. Its not even close to ban worthy, considering what JTMS and stoneforge had to accomplish to get banned i see the WotC selling magic to aquire Pokemon before that ever happens.
I'm trying to imagine sorin markov as a gym leader in one of those pokemon games which you have to beat him to get his badge... somehow I imagine that he would stab you in the chest with his sword before giving you the badge, even if you beat his pokemon....
196239043 wrote:
Personally, I'd be fine with tea time but then I'm not gonna waste the mana summoning Emrakul, the Aeons Torn. He always takes all the sugar, drinks the whole pot of Earl Grey and doesn't even say thank you. SO. RUDE.

 

JustTerrorIt wrote:

 

JuliusPringle wrote:

All I want to do is sit down and play magic, but when I walked in yesterday, (since I didn't talk to anyone) nobody talked to me and I silently bought what I wanted and walked out.


If you don't talk to anyone, that increases the odds that no one will talk to you.

 

JuliusPringle wrote:

So how do I just... introduce myself? "Hi, my name is Adam, wanna play magic with me?" Do I go to the counter and talk to the cashier?


Yeah. Talk to the cashier. Tell him/her that you want a Black Lotus, and if they don't have one tell them that the store isn't on par with what you expected.

 

Reach into your back left pocket. Pull out a deck list that you copied directly from some ChannelFireball top 8 Standard discussion, and ask for all the cards, as is, on that list. Then, ask for some random, probably terrible cards from whatever set is Standard legal. Say it's tech for the upcoming changes in the metagame.

 

Pull out a deck, and tell some random dude you wanna test (you have to use the term "test" for this to work) for Standard. Make sure that deck contains Kitchen Finks and Alluring Siren. Maybe throw in Nyxathid for good measure.

 

Finally, before you leave, spill (make it look like an accident) one hundred singleton, random cards onto the floor. Pick them up, put them in a pile, and say "EEE-DEE-AYCH".

 

I know this sounds dumb at first, but it will work. With the method outlined above, you will draw the attention of players that play older formats by asking for cards that no one on Earth can reasonably afford. You will get the attention of the wanna-be pro, Stomp-n00bz players by pulling out a well known decklist and declare that you have "tech" to make it better. You will get the attention of all the kind, helpful players by seemingly not knowing the most common format by having non-Standard legal cards in a deck that you claim is Standard legal. Finally, you catch all the rest of the Magic players by saying "EEE-DEE-AYCH" (EDH (or Commander)).

And there you have it. You will be talking to more people than you would have wanted to talk to in no time.

 

Smoke_Stack wrote:

EDH is the best format anyway


See, it's starting already.

 

Break the Card
What is Break the Card?
Break the Card is a regular thread in the Cards and Combo Forum. Quite simply, the participants are given a Johnnystatic card (e.g. Xenograft) and are asked to build a deck around it. The winner and honorable mentions are sigged below. Get brewing!
Week 1 : Xenograft
This week's Break the Card was based around Xenograft. Thread : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/27681049/Break_the_card_:_Xenograft?pg=1 Winner : Axterix with his Vampdrazi deck. Finalist : Vektor480 with his Ally/Golem/Plant deck. Honorable mentions : Zammm for the Turntimber Ranger combo and TinGorilla for suggesting Sarkhan the Mad.
Week 2 : Mindlock Orb
Here's the link to the Mindlock Orb contest : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/27697565/Break_the_Card_:_Mindlock_Orb?sdb=1&pg=last#497536269 Winner : Axterix with his Maralen of the Mornsong deck. Honorable mentions : Void_Elemental.
Week 3 : Bludgeon Brawl
Here's the link to Break the Card : Bludgeon Brawl : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/27715169/Break_the_Card_:_Bludgeon_Brawl?sdb=1&pg=last#498208797 Winner : Vektor and his Grab the World deck. Finalist : Crandor with his Awesome Aliteration deck. Honorable mentions : RP Jesus with his Wat deck and Zix200 with his Signet Renewal deck.
Week 4 : Followed Footsteps
This week was Followed Footsteps : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/27748677/Break_the_Card_:_Followed_Footsteps?pg=1 Winner : Tevish_Szat with his Exponential Growth deck. Honorable mentions : Zix with his Carbon Copies deck and Escef with his Fungus of Speed and Time deck.
Week 5 : Delaying Shield
This week's card was Delaying Shield : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/27790101/Break_the_Card_:_Delaying_Shield Winner : Tevish_Szat. Finalist : Vampire_Bat. Honorable Mention : Zix200.
Week 6 : Painter's Servant
This week's card was Painter's Servant : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/27940861/Break_the_Card_:_Painters_Servant?pg=1 Winner : Tevish_Szat with his Paint it Black deck. Finalist : Wprundv with his Tiger, Tiger Painted Bright deck.
Week 7 : Venser, the Sojourner
This week's card was Venser, the Sojourner : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/27977489/Break_the_Card_:_Venser,_the_Sojourner Winner : Izzett with her "Venser, Trickster Trader" deck. Finalist : Wprundv with his "Tactical Sojourner Action" deck.
Week 8 : Personal Sanctuary
This week's card was Personal Sanctuary : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/28005461/Break_the_card_:_Personal_Sanctuary Winner : MrQuizzles. Honorable mention : Vampire_Bat and UbberSheep
Week 9 : Sundial of the Infinite
This week's card was Sundial of the Infinite : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/28038277/Break_the_card_:_Sundial_of_the_Infinite Finalist : Izzett with her "Afterlife Trespassers" deck. Winner : Xeromus with his "Fortune 500" deck.
Week 10 : Jace's Archivist
This week's card was Jace's Archivist : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/28063377/Break_the_Card_:_Jaces_Archivist. Finalists : Jentaru with his "Consecration of the Draw" deck and HereticSmitty with his "ADHD: The deck" deck. Winner : JaxsonBateman with his "The Archives Are Endless!" deck.
Week 11 : Search the City
This week's card was Search the City : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/29518555/Break_the_Card_:_Search_the_City Finalist : Mown with "A Thousand Footsteps". Winner : Desolation_masticore with "Burn the City".
Week 12 : Fiend Hunter
This week's card was Fiend Hunter : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/29530975/Break_the_Card_:_Fiend_Hunter Winner : Yuyu63 with "Carnival Hunting". Honorable mention : Dknowle's "Champion the Fiend".
Week 13 : Clock of Omens
This week's card was Clock of Omens : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/29541549/Break_the_Card_:_Clock_of_Omens?pg=1 Winner : Dknowle's "The Myrs Go Marching".
Week 14 : Light of Sanction
This week's card was Light of Sanction : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/29607219/Break_the_Card_:_Light_of_Sanction?pg=1 Winner : Zauzich's "Divine Plague".
Week 15 : Assemble the Legion
This week's card was Assemble the Legion : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/29662307/Break_the_Card_:_Assemble_the_Legion Winner : JBTM's "Some Assembly Required".
Week 16 : High Tide
This week's cards were High Tide and/or Bubbling Muck : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/29760427/Break_the_Card_:_High_Tide Winner : Mown's "Puppet Strings".
Week 17 : Illusionist's Bracers
This week's card was Illusionist's Bracers : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/29776943/Break_the_Card_:_Illusionistss_Bracers Winner : Enigma256's "Tezzeret's Bracers"
Week 18 : Savor the Moment
This week's card was Savor the Moment : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/29787235/Break_the_Card_:_Savor_the_Moment Winner : POSValkir's "A Savory Filibuster!"
Week 19 : Grinning Ignus
This week's card was Grinning Ignus : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/29795547/Break_the_Card_:_Grinning_Ignus Winner : dknowle's "Luren' and Laughin'".
Week 20 : Transcendence
This week's card was Transcendence : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/29806481/Break_the_Card_:_Transcendence Winners : Mown's "Transcending Timing Restrictions" and Dknowle's "Blinded by Greed", tied for the win.
Week 21 : Mortus Strider
This week's card was Mortus Strider : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/29818471/Break_the_Card_:_Mortus_Strider Winner : SimonGlume's "Mortus Head".
Week 22 : High Priest of Penance
This week's card was High Priest of Penance : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/29917231/Break_the_Card_High_Priest_of_Penance Winners : JBTM's "Two Clerics and a Goblin walk into a (Bom)bar(dment)..." and POSValkir1's "Choke Their Rivers with Our Dead!".
Week 23 : False Cure
This week's card was False Cure :http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/29964239/Break_the_Card_:_False_Cure Winner : Dknowle's "When Hippos Fly".

Week 24 : Akroan Horse

This week's card was Akroan Horse : http://community.wizards.com/forum/cards-and-combos/threads/4024821.

Winner : Dknowle's "Indian Giver".

Week 25 : Leylines

This week saw multiple cards being in the contest : all of the Leylines! http://community.wizards.com/forum/cards-and-combos/threads/4067621

Winner : POSValkir1's "Laying the Battle Lines".

I guess, my impression is that misrepresenting that you *can* do something is completely legit, i.e. you can reach for township and set it aside, then begin to tap mana before blockers, hoping you opponent thinks you *can* activate and makes worse blocks.

Misrepresenting that you *are* doing something or *have done* something you cannot do is clearly wrong. Lets say you 'reveal' fury after blocks but before combat damage when your opponent is at 6 and about to take 4 from combat. Of course if your opponent takes 4 from fury rather than conceding you have an obligation to correct them, as you need to point out discrepancies in life totals. In fact, if your opponent actually takes 4 at all you have quite possibly cheated, as you shouldnt have made him think you were actually casting the spell.

However, having thought about it more I agree that "Good game" in a questioning voice reasonably implies that you have cast the spell. In an earlier post I imply that you should probably avoid saying 'good game' at all.

In my opinion, what really matters seems to be whether you are trying to convince your opponent you have cast a spell you couldnt cast (cheating) or that you *could* cast a spell you couldnt cast, but havent cast it yet (bluffing, similar to township example)

Considering that typically you dont randomly reveal cards from your hand, I do feel you need to make significant effort to ensure your opponent understands you are revealing, and not casting the spell. In this instance this likely involves specifically mentioning the mana is *floating* and that specifically stating you are *revealing* the card, as reveal has a specific in game use in magic, that appears in the rules text of other cards (i.e. 'reveal a card from your hand at random')

Anyways, the intent of the bluff is not to convince them you have cast fury, but rather to let them make a mistake by thinking you *could* cast fury. Tapping lands usually means you are casting something, but not necessarily. You can tap lands and float mana for whatever reason you want. Likewise, if you specifically state you are revealing the card, you are using a term with specific in-game meaning which is different from cast. Also, whenever I cast a spell I set it on the table, and when I reveal I often just show them the card from my hand, so the actions associated with each term are likewise possibly different.

I mean, I feel like it wouldnt be illegal if I say 'I have fury', reveal it, put it back in my hand, and hand my opponent a match slip and pick up my cards. For some reason I have more hesitation with this line though, as even though it makes it more clear you are revealing, by putting the card back in your hand you are obscuring its manacost, which seems wrong to me.

The goal is to show(reveal) to your opponent a lethal burn spell and tapped mana and let him leap to an incorrect conclusion at the end of a long and possibly mentally exhausting match as a bluff, not to actually misrepresent the manacost of fury in any way.
That wall of text is in a grey enough area and rests on thin enough technicalities that the judge on the scene could still easyly DQ you for fraud.
If I were a judge, I would want to know what on earth made you reveal Chandra's Fury.
If I were a judge, I would want to know what on earth made you reveal Chandra's Fury.




An earlier poster (level 1 judge) seemed to think that revealing fury without tapping lands was perfectly legal, so certainly the act of revealing fury when you cant cast it is not grounds for a DQ. I am revealing fury in the hopes my opponent concedes because even through I wont have cast it he doesnt realize I wont have the mana to do so. 

The main issue that has been brought up with tapping lands is that it suddenly becomes very unclear whether or not you are casting fury or simply revealing it. You are basically using (or abusing depending on your PoV) the fact that while you can reveal hidden information, usually you have no reason to volunarily do so.

I am basically trying to argue that as long as you make it clear you are not casting it, it is not any different than simply revealing it, in which case the tapping the lands part is legitimate.

I am trying to make the illusion that I *can* cast the fury as strong as possible, while at the same time ensuring that my wording implies I am not actually casting it.

Floating mana in order to convince your opponent you *can* do something is already part of several well established legal bluffs.

I guess, to the people that think I would get DQ'ed, is it because you think I am implying I am actually casting the spell, or for another reason??

When you combine the reveal with tapping lands it comes too close to doing something or declaring that you are about to do something.

Consider this alternate situation:
My opponent has a mono-colored creature in play and open. They pass the turn to me. I float mana and reveal ultimate price with all the verbal caveats you propose. My opponent casts Rootborn defenses.

What should happen? Forget that. What happened?  
   
 
If we unconditionally allow the type of bluffing you propose because it does not violate the letter of any specific rule it risks games degenerating into ambiguous table-talk and constant double-checking of "are you casting that?" and "do you pass priority?" and we loose the essence of what it is to play magic because everyone is too busy trying to bluff and not get bluffed.

Revealing a card you can't cast and handing a concession paper to your opponent is trying to convince him that you can cast it. You can turn it any way you want, try to separate the sequence, but in truth, you're trying to convince your opponent that you have the necessary mana to cast a spell when you don't, which is not clever but cheating.

Saying "I float four mana and reveal my card" is semantically possible within the rules. However, the only possible goal you had in mind would be to misrepresent the gamestate in the hopes of getting a concession from a careless opponent. This is not a clever bluff. It's cheating.

Fraud does not imply that you made illegal move. You only have to do moves, legal or not, in the attempt of misrepresenting the game-state. If you want to misrepresent your strategy or the cards you have in hand, you're bluffing, because your opponent can't access that information. If you're trying to convince him you can kill him when you can't by lying about the game-state, you're cheating, simple as that.

You shouldn't win a game of Magic because your opponent doesn't take the time to count your lands each time he sees a card from your hand.

Also, what Zauzich said. 

Rules Advisor

Quotes
76783093 wrote:
56957928 wrote:
58331438 wrote:
56945988 wrote:
Rancor dies to in-response removal.
Yeah... Until next game, where it'll be right back. Seriously, there's no way to deal with Rancor in any format. It should be banned, except Gleemax is a lobbyist for the Rancor party, so that'll never happen.
You can't ban rancor, it just returns to your deck.
58331438 wrote:
57461258 wrote:
You might want to actually talk to the Flavor & Storyline Board people... since, you know, our whole reason for playing Magic is the flavor. I'm willing to bet you'll get a lot more interest there than in General.
Indeed, both posters down there would be thrilled.
57817638 wrote:
I think I wasn't direct enough in my last post. I'll try to fix it now. Ahem... NO ONE CARES there you have it.
57471038 wrote:
When talks about banning Jace first started, I was thinking that I would see him banned come June 20th. But as I think more about it, I don't really think that Jace is the problem anymore. Sure his power level leaves very little to the imagination (opening Jace is like opening a refrigerator box with a naked girl on the inside), and sure his price does have a strong impact on what players choose to play (playing Jace is like being intimate with a woman and she doesn't charge you in the morning), but it is not the source of all the problems in Standard.
76973988 wrote:
How do people think saving room to print more abilities on cards is dumbing down the game?

Do you really think, say, Akroma would ever be printed if she said, "Akroma can block by creatures with this ability and cannot be blocked by creatures without this ability.  If a creature without this ability would deal combat damage by Akroma would be destroyed, prevent all combat damage that creature would deal to Akroma this combat.  Attacking does not cause Akroma to tap.  If Akroma is blocked and deals lethal damage, it deals the remainder of its damage to the defending player.  Akroma may attack and use abilities that require tapping in the casting cost the turn it enters the battlefield.  Akroma cannot be damaged, enchanted, equipped, blocked or targeted by black or red sources" rather than her "dumbed down" wording she has?  No freaking way.  Keywording and shorthand allows them to make complicated cards easy to play with, allowing them to be printed in the first place.
57817638 wrote:
The creation of praetors was worth it just because now amoeboid changeling is a praetor.
57140668 wrote:
1. cast frankie peanuts2. ask opponent "will you concede the game this turn"? if they say yes, you win; if they say no, play a staying power
3. subsequently ask "will you attack this turn"? and "will you cast a spell this turn"? (using a Teferi, Mage of Zhalfir for the second question if necessary) to ensure they can't disrupt the combo
4. donate them a platinum angel
5. play a mox lotus and braingeyser them for every card in their library. play an opalescence and donate them a glorious anthem and a blacker lotus, then play enchanted evening. play and activate a mindslaver and then donate them a fastbond and the mox lotus (returning one of the donates to your hand with eternal witness or whatever)
6. during their turn, play every permanent in their hand (playing lands with fastbond) then (as yourself) cast mirrorweave on the blacker lotus, so every permanent becomes a copy of it. proceed to tear up every card they control, and hopefully do it before they notice that they aren't bound by staying power's ability anymore and can concede
82423538 wrote:
57471038 wrote:
82423538 wrote:
One part of the statement being true=/=the whole statement true.
Whatever. I'm still here about ten minutes away. Whenever you want to get destroyed in Magic, I'm available.
I would like to get destroyed in Magic, actually. Do you know anybody good enough?
57617478 wrote:
Please format your statements in a way that doesn't look like a baboon hit its face on your keyboard.
57140668 wrote:
why did Garruk Relentless lose a loyalty counter
Show
to get to the other side
89522235 wrote:
You're such an obvious troll that you have hexproof and : Regenerate.
56957928 wrote:
56776038 wrote:
Dark Ritual being overpowered is determined more by what is done with it than the card itself.
True, but the fact that it enables so many ridiculous things is pretty telling. It's like, sure I can use a shotgun as a bludgeoning instrument, but that doesn't make it not a shotgun.
79035425 wrote:
Shortly before Serra died, she transferred her spark into an angel whose full name was Asha Avacyn Bolas. Her dragon father groomed her for her positions in Alara and Innistrad, and she's also been getting help from her uncle Ugin in the form of Urza, who was resurrected as Marit Lage to be the avatar as which she projects herself into material realms. Grieslbrand is a split personality who sometimes wanders the planes disguised as a human woman named Liliana Vess.
97610188 wrote:
Yeah that (Content Removed) really annoys me. Moderated by MY_self right about naahowwww!
93446159 wrote:
Dilleux_Lepaire just won the thread.
57461258 wrote:
And, as usual, Dilleux wins the entire thread. Nice work, sir, nice work.
99113151 wrote:
They need to make 9 layers of zones where cards go when they "die". Much like Hell.
56778328 wrote:
Wow, holy doggy poop, kids, obvious statement is obvious.
56776038 wrote:
122053101 wrote:
i don't think your geting it WotC is trying to kill the comption to make it so that there shity app is the only one left.
I haven't tried the app. How is its use of English grammar? Cheers!
57471038 wrote:
Everyone's life would be easier if players would, instead of coming to the 'net for help with a deck, just netdeck and be done with it. And I'm not talking about some Top 8 lists, for the Casualists, too, can benefit from netdecking. I've netdecked plenty of decks from the Casual Play forums from users such as Mown, Raedien, Floopfoot, and a few others. I snatched straight the heck out of my web browser. Yes, people, your original idea fell victim to a savage netdecker. You have been assimiliated. Suppose I wanted a Zombie deck. Why on earth would I spend time searching Gatherer for a decent list of Zombie cards when Raedien already did it for me? Taking time to be creative or waiting on people on the forums to tell you why your deck sucks or 'go to Casual forums' is a disasterous waste of time (to me).
56957928 wrote:
82423538 wrote:
If WotC started putting $100 bills in packs, the players would complain that they folded them wrong.
No, they just spam them with ban requests. That being said, Magic was ruined back in Alpha when they added all that rules and cards [Debutantes avert your eyes]. My friends and I still like playing it the "pure" way (Basically we go into the woods and hit eachother with wiffle bats while shouting made up obscenities. You know, the way Garfield wanted it to be played).
56957928 wrote:
Don't worry about it. I've come up with a list of changes to fix EDH. -First off, there's no commander. -The minimum deck size is 60 cards, and each deck can have up to four of each card, save basic lands and relentless rats. Also decks have no color identity. -Starting life total is 20. And voila, now things are balanced.
89522235 wrote:
Here's a clever play you can try yourself: -Convince friend to run relentless rats.dec in legacy tournament -Get a deck with lots of mill, yixlid jailer, and humility -Drop humility and jailer, wait for him to dump his hand, mill him out -All his rats now have no abilities. Call a judge because he's playing an illegal deck with more than 4 of a single card. -Get him/her banned from competitive magic play
142055101 wrote:
But how to mark them without making the individual sleeve different! You could buy a skunk and slam it's butt on you deck (pardon the french) Then after the game just sniff at your opponent's pile of cards and you will know if any of your cards are there!!!
141434757 wrote:
In Soviet Russia, Sorin opens You
71235715 wrote:
L, is for the leather gloves you weaaaar. O, is for the organs that guy could spaaaare. V, is very very, extraordinay. E, is for every vagrant i butchered in a wine cellar befooooore.
57052258 wrote:
The outer layer of the Magic: the Gathering box, the carton, or crust, is fairly thin and light, and contains largely aluminosilcates. Within that lies the middle layer, consisting of the familiar booster pack. Although solid, the booster packs' high temperatures allow them to acutally move around within the booster box. This flow, sometimes called convection, is cited by frustrated box mappers as one of WOTC's most genious uses of thermodynamics since the Ravnica block. No one knows what lies at the core of the booster box, but scientists theorize that it must be especially dense in order to make up for the large amount of fluff distributed amongst the booster packs.
58232598 wrote:
88993869 wrote:
Torpor Orb is absolutely godawful against Vexing Devil.
whoever is playing vexing devil is probably losing anyways
56957928 wrote:
I imagine [Ajani 3's] second ability involves him hurling the creature at your opponent Brion Stoutarm style, then the guy is just like "Okay, that may have worked, but don't- GOD DAMN IT!" as he does it again because cats don't give a **** :33.
56957928 wrote:
"Do or do not, there is no try." - Albus Dumbledore, The Lord of the Rings.
89522235 wrote:
68978039 wrote:
Its like that one time Elves broke out in a field of Jund. Elves became a resurgent hit, then died off again once Jund adapted to the rest of the field of G/W that it required mass removal that inherently pooped on Elves too. Submit to the menace. Delver can, and will blot out the sun.
Then we shall play in the shade.
89522235 wrote:
I'm sorry, this forum isn't for getting bad advice on mediocre decks, that's standard deck help. This forum is for starting ****storms.
97820278 wrote:
139359831 wrote:
Your advice would only lead me to make generic, boring, and unworthy content. It's of no use to me.
I just got this image of you as an architect, having finished a building suspended by only a small pole in its southwest corner, saying it's original. Then the building collapses.
56957928 wrote:
I for one love the flavor of legendary lands. "I remember my days as a youth at Tolarian Academy." "Wow, small multiverse, I actually went there too." "WAIT, DON'T- Well ****, there's $200,000 in student loans well spent."
56957928 wrote:
And flavor goes out the window when you cast a second copy of a planeswalker right after the first one dies, so... "Hey Nissa, I need a favor." "You just asked me for a 'favor' like thirty seconds ago, and it turned out to be having Sarkhan Transmogrify my only follower into a dragon like 5 times -which dickery aside also violates some laws of causality - and then you let me get beaten over the head by that hedron crab." "...I'll give you " "...Well all right then."
57150868 wrote:
GM, I don't think Dill is better than you. I KNOW it. Even if he wakes up every morning, clubs a baby seal, steals all the TV remotes from within a block's radius of his house and then robs hungry orphans of their food he'd be better than you, for the simple reason that he learns from his mistakes.
143211137 wrote:
57033358 wrote:
Tamiyo vs. Gideon
What would they have to fight about? Like, all I can think of now is Gideon going "Hey, long-ears! I'm gathering a group of 'Walkers together to fight some tentacle monsters.....you want in?" and Tamiyo going "Ew! Hentai no bakka Gideon-desu desu!" and flying away.
76783093 wrote:
I open 4 packs just to be on the safe side. Not only do I get more cards than everyone else, but I also get to spend the rest of the night off. Win Win.
191752181 wrote:
MaRo has a thing for people opening boosters with bad cards. But since he can only get so many bad cards printed in each set, he has found a devious way of getting more bad cards into circulation: He makes entire print sheets with just bad rares, then puts them onto the assembly line. He proceeds to wring his hands and twirl his evil mustache that he grew for twirling purposes as a lightning bolt strikes in the background. Afterwards, he goes to make sure that the good cards are only opened by everyone's friends, and that we all only get to open bad cards. He does this by memorising each booster, than switching them around accordingly. Whenever someone complains about a card, he immediately jumps out from behind a chair to yell "WELL, IT'S NOT FOR YOU!" before merging back into the shadows in order to devise new ways in which he can screw over players, then claim that he has valid reasons for doing so.
97820278 wrote:
192729031 wrote:
You open a booster pack, and staring back at you from the rare slot is a Lotleth Troll? At least I can stick him in my EDH deck and still have four for my standard constructed.
Because lol troll
56874518 wrote:
It helped that I more or less skipped most of GM_Champion's longer diatribes. I only have so many brain cells I'm willing to sacrifice each day.
192931349 wrote:
Mark Rosewater is sitting in a seemingly innocuous cable TV van, outside of Bankaimastery's house. Sitting nearby are two hardened criminal hackers, fresh out of prison, and filled with resentment at their lack of physical fitness. "Have you managed to hack his brainwaves yet? The set deadline's coming up fast." "We're almost through. It should be coming up on the screen any second." The hacker presses a button, and Kevin's thoughts flash onto the screen. Mark and the hackers stare in amazement at the sheer beauty, the elegance, and the raw truth of what they see. It's like the ending to 2001: A Space Odyssey. Brilliant light shines across the screen, the truth of existence is made clear to them, and they despair at their own foolishness, their own ignorance, their own inadequacy. And then they steal his ideas. As they return back to R&D, Mark sneers at a haggard old man chained to a cast-iron sphere. The man looks up from his laborious task of breaking rocks in the dungeon of Wizards of the Coast headquarters, and asks a question: "Kevin, my greatest student. He - he's all right, isn't he? You didn't hurt him?" Mark deals him a weighty blow with his boot. "Know your place, Richard. Get back to work."
57023768 wrote:
Now show me on the Garruk doll where Zac Hill ruined your enjoyment of Magic...
63711769 wrote:
I'm only opposed to it because it bears so little relation to how people actually play the game. The example of Miracles is actually a much better one then the Clone example I was trying to use. From the game's perspective, the card can move instantly from face down in the library to revealed in the hand and that's fine for the rules. But in real life, we can't actually do that, so the card spends a good bit of time in locations that are neither where that player's library is nor where that player's hand is. And that's fine for real life. What I don't want is the disconnect to be explicitly codified. Along the lines of
183664.697 A game of Magic as laid out by these rules exists only as a pure Platonic ideal, utterly unrealizable by fallible mortals limited by the confines of physicality and the ravages of evil and sin. 183664.698 The cake is a lie, too.
I know it's true, but I don't want the rules to actually straight-up tell me that.
147137503 wrote:
77120821 wrote:
Pfft this cant be serious can it? If it is please delete your account OP. Its not even close to ban worthy, considering what JTMS and stoneforge had to accomplish to get banned i see the WotC selling magic to aquire Pokemon before that ever happens.
I'm trying to imagine sorin markov as a gym leader in one of those pokemon games which you have to beat him to get his badge... somehow I imagine that he would stab you in the chest with his sword before giving you the badge, even if you beat his pokemon....
196239043 wrote:
Personally, I'd be fine with tea time but then I'm not gonna waste the mana summoning Emrakul, the Aeons Torn. He always takes all the sugar, drinks the whole pot of Earl Grey and doesn't even say thank you. SO. RUDE.

 

JustTerrorIt wrote:

 

JuliusPringle wrote:

All I want to do is sit down and play magic, but when I walked in yesterday, (since I didn't talk to anyone) nobody talked to me and I silently bought what I wanted and walked out.


If you don't talk to anyone, that increases the odds that no one will talk to you.

 

JuliusPringle wrote:

So how do I just... introduce myself? "Hi, my name is Adam, wanna play magic with me?" Do I go to the counter and talk to the cashier?


Yeah. Talk to the cashier. Tell him/her that you want a Black Lotus, and if they don't have one tell them that the store isn't on par with what you expected.

 

Reach into your back left pocket. Pull out a deck list that you copied directly from some ChannelFireball top 8 Standard discussion, and ask for all the cards, as is, on that list. Then, ask for some random, probably terrible cards from whatever set is Standard legal. Say it's tech for the upcoming changes in the metagame.

 

Pull out a deck, and tell some random dude you wanna test (you have to use the term "test" for this to work) for Standard. Make sure that deck contains Kitchen Finks and Alluring Siren. Maybe throw in Nyxathid for good measure.

 

Finally, before you leave, spill (make it look like an accident) one hundred singleton, random cards onto the floor. Pick them up, put them in a pile, and say "EEE-DEE-AYCH".

 

I know this sounds dumb at first, but it will work. With the method outlined above, you will draw the attention of players that play older formats by asking for cards that no one on Earth can reasonably afford. You will get the attention of the wanna-be pro, Stomp-n00bz players by pulling out a well known decklist and declare that you have "tech" to make it better. You will get the attention of all the kind, helpful players by seemingly not knowing the most common format by having non-Standard legal cards in a deck that you claim is Standard legal. Finally, you catch all the rest of the Magic players by saying "EEE-DEE-AYCH" (EDH (or Commander)).

And there you have it. You will be talking to more people than you would have wanted to talk to in no time.

 

Smoke_Stack wrote:

EDH is the best format anyway


See, it's starting already.

 

Break the Card
What is Break the Card?
Break the Card is a regular thread in the Cards and Combo Forum. Quite simply, the participants are given a Johnnystatic card (e.g. Xenograft) and are asked to build a deck around it. The winner and honorable mentions are sigged below. Get brewing!
Week 1 : Xenograft
This week's Break the Card was based around Xenograft. Thread : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/27681049/Break_the_card_:_Xenograft?pg=1 Winner : Axterix with his Vampdrazi deck. Finalist : Vektor480 with his Ally/Golem/Plant deck. Honorable mentions : Zammm for the Turntimber Ranger combo and TinGorilla for suggesting Sarkhan the Mad.
Week 2 : Mindlock Orb
Here's the link to the Mindlock Orb contest : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/27697565/Break_the_Card_:_Mindlock_Orb?sdb=1&pg=last#497536269 Winner : Axterix with his Maralen of the Mornsong deck. Honorable mentions : Void_Elemental.
Week 3 : Bludgeon Brawl
Here's the link to Break the Card : Bludgeon Brawl : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/27715169/Break_the_Card_:_Bludgeon_Brawl?sdb=1&pg=last#498208797 Winner : Vektor and his Grab the World deck. Finalist : Crandor with his Awesome Aliteration deck. Honorable mentions : RP Jesus with his Wat deck and Zix200 with his Signet Renewal deck.
Week 4 : Followed Footsteps
This week was Followed Footsteps : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/27748677/Break_the_Card_:_Followed_Footsteps?pg=1 Winner : Tevish_Szat with his Exponential Growth deck. Honorable mentions : Zix with his Carbon Copies deck and Escef with his Fungus of Speed and Time deck.
Week 5 : Delaying Shield
This week's card was Delaying Shield : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/27790101/Break_the_Card_:_Delaying_Shield Winner : Tevish_Szat. Finalist : Vampire_Bat. Honorable Mention : Zix200.
Week 6 : Painter's Servant
This week's card was Painter's Servant : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/27940861/Break_the_Card_:_Painters_Servant?pg=1 Winner : Tevish_Szat with his Paint it Black deck. Finalist : Wprundv with his Tiger, Tiger Painted Bright deck.
Week 7 : Venser, the Sojourner
This week's card was Venser, the Sojourner : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/27977489/Break_the_Card_:_Venser,_the_Sojourner Winner : Izzett with her "Venser, Trickster Trader" deck. Finalist : Wprundv with his "Tactical Sojourner Action" deck.
Week 8 : Personal Sanctuary
This week's card was Personal Sanctuary : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/28005461/Break_the_card_:_Personal_Sanctuary Winner : MrQuizzles. Honorable mention : Vampire_Bat and UbberSheep
Week 9 : Sundial of the Infinite
This week's card was Sundial of the Infinite : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/28038277/Break_the_card_:_Sundial_of_the_Infinite Finalist : Izzett with her "Afterlife Trespassers" deck. Winner : Xeromus with his "Fortune 500" deck.
Week 10 : Jace's Archivist
This week's card was Jace's Archivist : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/28063377/Break_the_Card_:_Jaces_Archivist. Finalists : Jentaru with his "Consecration of the Draw" deck and HereticSmitty with his "ADHD: The deck" deck. Winner : JaxsonBateman with his "The Archives Are Endless!" deck.
Week 11 : Search the City
This week's card was Search the City : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/29518555/Break_the_Card_:_Search_the_City Finalist : Mown with "A Thousand Footsteps". Winner : Desolation_masticore with "Burn the City".
Week 12 : Fiend Hunter
This week's card was Fiend Hunter : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/29530975/Break_the_Card_:_Fiend_Hunter Winner : Yuyu63 with "Carnival Hunting". Honorable mention : Dknowle's "Champion the Fiend".
Week 13 : Clock of Omens
This week's card was Clock of Omens : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/29541549/Break_the_Card_:_Clock_of_Omens?pg=1 Winner : Dknowle's "The Myrs Go Marching".
Week 14 : Light of Sanction
This week's card was Light of Sanction : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/29607219/Break_the_Card_:_Light_of_Sanction?pg=1 Winner : Zauzich's "Divine Plague".
Week 15 : Assemble the Legion
This week's card was Assemble the Legion : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/29662307/Break_the_Card_:_Assemble_the_Legion Winner : JBTM's "Some Assembly Required".
Week 16 : High Tide
This week's cards were High Tide and/or Bubbling Muck : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/29760427/Break_the_Card_:_High_Tide Winner : Mown's "Puppet Strings".
Week 17 : Illusionist's Bracers
This week's card was Illusionist's Bracers : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/29776943/Break_the_Card_:_Illusionistss_Bracers Winner : Enigma256's "Tezzeret's Bracers"
Week 18 : Savor the Moment
This week's card was Savor the Moment : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/29787235/Break_the_Card_:_Savor_the_Moment Winner : POSValkir's "A Savory Filibuster!"
Week 19 : Grinning Ignus
This week's card was Grinning Ignus : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/29795547/Break_the_Card_:_Grinning_Ignus Winner : dknowle's "Luren' and Laughin'".
Week 20 : Transcendence
This week's card was Transcendence : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/29806481/Break_the_Card_:_Transcendence Winners : Mown's "Transcending Timing Restrictions" and Dknowle's "Blinded by Greed", tied for the win.
Week 21 : Mortus Strider
This week's card was Mortus Strider : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/29818471/Break_the_Card_:_Mortus_Strider Winner : SimonGlume's "Mortus Head".
Week 22 : High Priest of Penance
This week's card was High Priest of Penance : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/29917231/Break_the_Card_High_Priest_of_Penance Winners : JBTM's "Two Clerics and a Goblin walk into a (Bom)bar(dment)..." and POSValkir1's "Choke Their Rivers with Our Dead!".
Week 23 : False Cure
This week's card was False Cure :http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/29964239/Break_the_Card_:_False_Cure Winner : Dknowle's "When Hippos Fly".

Week 24 : Akroan Horse

This week's card was Akroan Horse : http://community.wizards.com/forum/cards-and-combos/threads/4024821.

Winner : Dknowle's "Indian Giver".

Week 25 : Leylines

This week saw multiple cards being in the contest : all of the Leylines! http://community.wizards.com/forum/cards-and-combos/threads/4067621

Winner : POSValkir1's "Laying the Battle Lines".

I see what you mean adeyke. In the actual situation, I was actually playing online via a forbidden program with an explicit *reveal card* option, so it was 100% clear that I was revealing and not casting. I didn't put a lot of thought into the hypothetical situation because thats not what happened and I try to avoid mentioning such programs on these boards.


dafuq? If your game has a "*reveal card*" option why are you even asking? If he scoops in rage that's too bad for him, but this little trick won't work with more competitive and/or real games. Whether you consider it cheating or not it won't work

~Your either my puppet or my matchstick~

color preferences (1st is fav and so on):

198732583 wrote:
Oh Ajani seems to like Elpheth's milk, meow.
This varies by player, but typically whenever I am casting a spell in response to something on the stack, I say "Response, I do action X"

Zauzich, if my opponent was to say "response, cast rootborn" then he clearly thought I was casting the spell.

At that point I could argue, "I was just revealing!" but that line of reasoning is likely to fail, as it relies on my opponent believing I had not actually yet cast the spell. If my opponent tried to do this bluff on me, even if I didnt think he was casting, I could probably reasonably say "response, do X" and then he will certainly have trouble convincing a reasonable judge that he was not casting, and if he did he would likely get DQ'ed. Since this bluff will work only very rarely, I don't see strategic advantage of using it unless its the end of the game.

 Alternatively, my opponent could have cast dissipate, and then its even clearer he believes I have cast.

In my example, if my opponent concedes, its not clear at all to me he thinks I actually went ahead with and cast a spell, if I explicitly use the word reveal, while in your example, it is clear he thinks I am casting the spell, and whether my opponent thinks I am actually casting or just implying (but not explicitly stating) an ability to cast, similar to how you can imply you can use gavony township when you cannot, is the crux of the argument.


Dilleux_Lepaire, "Revealing a card you can't cast and handing a concession paper to your opponent is trying to convince him that you can cast it. You can turn it any way you want, try to separate the sequence, but in truth, you're trying to convince your opponent that you have the necessary mana to cast a spell when you don't, which is not clever but cheating.:: 

There is no such thing as a concession paper, there is only a match slip. If my opponent did this to me in most circumstances I wouldnt think he was trying to bluff me, I would just think he was conceding and wouldnt find him handing me a match slip weird. If you are a neutral outside observer here, I find it hard to believe that handing a person a match slip implies they have lost, only that the match is over. As Ive mentioned before, its not terribly uncommon for a losing player to tap all their mana before losing and then reveal their cards (especially if its the final game of a match and their opponent isn't gaining new info from seeing the cards)

Furthermore, you could have said the same thing even if I had not tapped the lands, but I believe I am on firmer ground when I say that is not cheating, and is the kind of play that others have mentioned actually happens at grand prix. If you don't tap lands, it is very clear you are simply revealing the card. 

The act of revealing a card to make your opponent think you can cast it even when you cannot is a legal play (as far as anyone has told me in this thread).

You appear to think this would slow the pace of play, but its disadvantageous for you to try this at any point in the game other than the final play as 95% of the time you would be giving your opponent free information for no reason, and why would you normally do that?

Also, misrepresenting what you *could* do with cards you have in play is not illegal. In the township example, if I move township to the front of my lands and then start tapping mana and smiling, it seems to my opponent that I am about to activate township, but that play is perfectly legal (as far as I know). The township bluff in fact relies on you making your opponent believe you are about to use township when you are not, otherwise why would it work?

Currently, the rules of magic in repetitive REL are set up to punish players who arent careful, i.e. missed trigger rules. Even if you believe your opponent has remembered that they have a pyreheart wolf trigger that makes it so you have to double block, if they dont announce the trigger, verbally or otherwise, you are able to single block. This argument is admittedly not watertight because it only shows players are expected to know their own cards, but it does show that the rules contain verbiage that goes to extraordinary lengths to punish players for lack of knowledge of cards. I could argue that being able to recognize that your opponent cant cast cards they have revealed but havent cast is a skill, in the same way remembering mandatory triggers is also a skill now. If fury is clearly visible and its clear you are not casting it, I think it is a skill on the part of your opponent to recognize it costs 5 mana.

 Statue of Luberty: You are right, I have never tried this in a real game. I am asking on the rules Q&A to determine if its a legal play, not if it will work. If it is considered a legal play, there is basically no strategic disadvantage of trying it in the final game of the match (if its legal, if its a gray area there is a huge disadvantage as depending on the judge you might get DQ'ed), and I am very confidant that while this type of play might only rarely work at a high level of play, it will definitely sometimes work. If its not illegal, why not go for increasing your win % by 0.1%?
Sign In to post comments