Community

@PurpleFive: Initally I was arguing that I wasnt trying to misrepresent the game state, I was hoping to represent it correctly and hope my opponent leapt to an incorrect conclusion in a way that was not my fault. In the spellskite-kiki-jiki example, you use spellskite in a perfectly legal way in the hope your opponent wont realize what happens next and concedes. In the spellskite example, you are completely in your rights to target kiki's ability, even though your sole purpose is to 'misrepresent' the game state to your opponent in a 'legal' way. What has been argued here, and has changed my opinion, are various facts about 'assumed targeting' and general judging opinion that reveal+tap=cast regardless of what else is going on, and hence while it is very difficult to recreate the spellskite example in the fury case. One can imagine, however, if MTGO had a 'reveal' option. In that case, it would certainly be possible to tap 4 and reveal, and certainly a player online wouldnt complain that you should get a DQ if they fall for this. In real life, its very difficult to get your opponent to understand your opponent thinks you are revealing when your not. You could ask, after your opponent scoops "when I said I was revealing fury, did you think I was casting or revealing". If they answer casting, then you say, hey, thats not what was happening, you win that game. If they answer revealing you say "alright just making sure". 

@Bowsheicz
I agree and appreciate the response. I think what I maybe should have clarified at the onset of this discussion is that this exact situation is extremely unlikely to actually come up, what I really care about is what is going through a judge's mind when they make these kinds of decisions, and to better understand judging philosophy through the use of a specific example. The idea was to make the situation intentionally open ended so that I could get responses like 'well, doing this is okay for this and this reason, but what you actually did was this, and I would consider that cheating for this and this reason.'

Jan 3, 2013 -- 9:19AM, PurpleFive wrote:

"I was hoping to represent it correctly and hope my opponent leapt to an incorrect conclusion in a way that was not my fault."
You're playing with words, here. Your goal is that your way of putting things is misleading enough to cause your opponent to misinterpret the gamestate, but you don't want to take the risk of being DQ-ed.
It is a borderline way of thinking that leads to a deteriored tournament experience, and that is a good enough reason to penalize it.

You do not have to always promote fair-play, but you should avoid borderline actions ("the rules don't forbid it, so I'll do it"). That is the main point I wish to get through.

My perspective is this: if you didn't take any illegal game actions and if your opponent doesn't think you've taken any illegal game actions, even after the situation is clearly explained in more detail, you are fine. Mind games are okay, more than okay. Legitimate mind games are an important part of the game at a high level of play, and the ability to successfully pull off legitimate mind games or bluff is extremely important. Many of the best magic players are also successful poker players. The Estratti bluff is a perfect example of one such 'legal' bluff, and many pros view it as the best play of the year.

The issue in the fury example is that even if you say you are revealing and do your best to avoid actions that would imply you are casting a spell (other than tapping and declaring floating, which is legitimate action), your opponent may still believe you are actually casting it. If your opponent believes you are casting and you know that, you are obligated to point it out. If you think their is a reasonable possibility your opponent thinks you are casting, you also have a responsibility to point it out.

Now, if your opponent falls for the 'bluff' and says 'I scoop' I agree its still not clear what happened. If you then ask your opponent 'did you think I was revealing or casting that spell' and they respond, 'I thought you were revealing' then I don't see how tricking your opponent in this manner is cheating. If they respond 'I thought you were casting' you can say, 'I said I was revealing, but its clear now that there was some legitimate confusion that was not cleared up. I was never casting and I concede the game, this is your win'. In this way, you don't gain any advantage over the people that were confused about the game state, the only people you have an advantage over are the people were their is no confusion about the game state, exactly as it should be in my opinion. I completely agree that you should not seek to create confusion about what is actually happening and gain advantage of it.

If your opponent forgets you have gavony township, you have 0 cards in hand and 4 other lands none of which produce white, and they go to blocks you can tap 4 lands and say 'float 4' and hope they concede. The only reason you'd do this is to make your opponent think you were about to use township, but I dont see how you have cheated or done anything shady in that case. If you also tap township and say 'floating all' and then reach for a pile of marbles, then you've cheated. In this case 'floating all' implies you that every land you have tapped for mana, you tapped for mana' but I agree this is a technicality. By reaching for counters, even if you never put them on your guys, you've represented you are actually using township and thats cheating.

Edit: With regards to 'borderline actions', I agree that if a reasonable % of judge's think you shouldnt do a play, dont do it. At FNM, there may be legal plays you shouldnt make because they are against the spirit of the tournament. I agree there are things you can do at competitive REL you shouldnt do, (i.e., repeatedly telling your opponent just how much you need to use the restroom in the hopes this will distract them from their triggers) but those things are covered by the rules under unsportsmanlike conduct. If some confusion comes up (a player says' esper charm targeting me') then you can simply call a judge. Getting wins off 'rules-lawyering' is part of the game (I'm not talking about FNM or prerelease type events here). If my opponent is aware of their pyreheart wolf trigger but dont announce it, the only reason Id call a judge is to hope he rules I can single block, but the act of calling a judge and hoping he'll side with you isn't shady. Calling a judge if your opponent casts harrow and then puts in his graveyard before finding lands is perfectly fine. Sure, the judge will rule for your opponent in this case, but I dont think youve done anything 'shady'. Obviously you should only call a judge if you think their is a significant chance they will rule in your favor, and you should never call a judge if their is a known 'correct' ruling in the hopes they make a mistake (so, if you know about the harrow ruling, dont call the judge)

Basically, any 'borderline' cases should be in a judge's hands, and you should work to ensure the game state is mutually understood by both players. As long as you do that and act in a sportmanlike way, then I think your good.